VINDICATION  OF    UNITARIANISM, 


IN    BKPLY    TO 


MR.  WARDLAW'S   DISCOURSES 


OH   THE 


SOCINIAN  CONTROVERSY. 


Bt  JAMES  YATES,  M.A. 


'  Read,  nof  to  contradict  or  confute,  nor  to  telieve  and  take  for  granted,  nor  to  find  talk  and 
discourse,  but  to  weigh  and  considt*."    Lord  Bacon. 


BOSTON : 

rUBUSHIO   BT   WILIS   AND   LILLY,    FROM  THE  GLASGOW   EDITION. 

1816. 


ADVERTISEMENT. 

As  Mr.  Wardi^aw's  Discourses  have  been  reprinted  and 
circulated  extensively  in  this  country,  it  has  been  thought,  that 
a  republication  also  of  Mr.  Yates'  reply  will  be  acceptable;  and 
the  more  so,  as  it  is  written  with  remarkable  ability  and  good 
temper.  Some  notes  and  an  Appendix  have  been  added  by  the 
American  editor. 

Boston,  January,  1816. 


CONTENTS, 

Page. 

PART  I. — Introduction      ------------  1 

Chap.  I.  On  the  general  principles  to  be  followed  in  investi- 
gating the  truth  of  religious  doctrines     -------  11 

Chap.  II.     On  the  regard  paid  to  the  Sacred  Scriptures  by 

Unitarians  --,---*,--------  17 

Chap.  III.     On  the  proper  method  of  ascertaining  the  sense  of 

Scripture     ----------------  31 

Chap.  IV.     On  the  propriety  of  believing  in  mysteries    -    -  44 

PART  II.— Introduction -..-      58 

Chap.  I.     The  evidence  for  the  unity  of  God  from  the  light  of 

nature    -----------------      ib 

Chap.  II.  The  evidence  for  the  unity  of  God  from  the  testi- 
mony of  the   Scripture;     -----------       65 

Chap.  III.     Evidence  that  the  Father  is  the  only  true  God     -      69 

Chap.  IV".  Statement  of  the  Unitarian  doctrine  concerning 
the  person  of  Christ.  Evidence  that  he  was  not  God,  but 
a  distinct  being  from  him    -----------       74 

Cn.A^.  V.    Evidence  that  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  inferiour  and 

subordinate  to  God  the  Father.  79 

Chap.  V^I.  Evidence  for  the  Unitariaji  doctrine  concerning  the 
ivisdom  and  knowledge  of  Christ,  vis.  that  they  were  im- 
parted to  him  by  God  the  Father --.       98 


IV  ,  CONTENTS. 

Chap.  VII.     Evidence  for  the  Unitarian  doctrine  concerning 

the  origin  of  Christ's  power,  vis.  that  it  was  given  to  him.       92 

Chap.  VIII.     On  the  use  of  the  phrases  "Holy  Spirit,"  &c.  in 

the  Sacred  Scriptures    ------------      114 

PART  III.— Introduction 135 

Chap.  I.     Statements  of  what  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is, 

and  of  the  evidence  requisite  in  each  case  to  prove  it     -       ib. 

Chap.  II.  Examination  of  the  evidence  for  a  Plurality  of  Per- 
sons in  the  Godhead     ------------     146 

Chap.  III.  Examination  of  the  evidence  for  a  'Prinity  of  Per- 
sons in  the  Godhead     ------------     157 

Chap.  IV.      Of  the   doctrine   of  Christ's   divine   and   human 

natures       ----------------      174 

Chap.  V.     Examination  of  the  passages,  in  which  the  peculiar 

titles  of  Deity  are  supposed  to  be  applied  to  Jesus  Christ     182 

Chap.  VI.     Examination  of  the  passages,  in  which  the  peculiar 

attributes  of  Deity  are  supposed  to  be  ascribed  to  Christ     218 

Chap.  VII.  Examination  of  the  passages,  in  which  ihe  pecu- 
liar works  of  Deity  are  supposed  to  be  ascribed  to  Christ     231 

Chap.  VIII.     Examination  of  the  passages  in  which  supreme 

worship  is  supposed   to   be  given  to  Christ     -----    238 

Chap.  IX.  Examination  of  the  remaining  arguments  produced 
by  Mr.  Wardlaw  to  prove  the  supreme  divinity  of  Jesus 
Christ .--257 

Chap.  X.     Examination  of  the  evidence  produced  to  prove  the 

distinct  Personality  and  Divinity  of  the  Holy  Spirit     -    -    269 

Chap.  XI.  Prevalence  of  Unitarianism  in  the  early  ages  of  the 
Christian  Church.  Origin  and  progress  of  the  Trinitarian 
doctrine      ----------------     276 

Chap.  XII.      Other  doctrines  of  Mr.  Wardlaw's  Discourses. 

Correspondence  between  him  and  the  Author.  Conclusion.    284 

APPENDIX. 


VINDICATION  OF  UNITARIANISM,  &c. 


PART  I. 


INTRODUCTION. 


In  commencing  a  reply  to  Mr.  Wardlaw's  "  Discourses 
on  the  Socinian  Controversy,"  I  undertake  a  task  by  no 
means  consonant  to  my  own  feelings.  The  discussion  of 
disputed  points  in  theology,  even  when  conducted  in  the 
calmest  manner,  has  a  tendency  to  impede  the  exercise  of 
the  devotional  and  benevolent  affections  ;  and  for  this  reason, 
having  once  formed  my  opinion  by  a  diligent  and  impar- 
tial study  of  the  Scriptures,  I  have  in  general  avoided 
the  paths  of  religious  controversy,  except  when  the  circum- 
stances of  my  situation  obliged  me  to  enter  anew  upon 
arguments,  which,  though  I  hoped  they  would  be  useful  to 
others,  were  to  me  always  unprofitable.  It  is  no  palliative 
of  my  aversion  to  this  employment,  that  my  opponent  is  a 
man,  for  whom,  so  far  as  the  difference  of  our  religious 
sentiments  has  encouraged  an  intercourse,  I  entertain  a 
very  high  esteem  and  warm  attachment. 

Such  an  undertaking  is  however  in  the  present  case 
unavoidable.  Mr.  Wardlaw  has  quoted  my  sermon 
preached  at  the  opening  of  the  Unitarian  Chapel  in  this 
city,  and  has  blamed  one  of  its  assertions,  relating  to  the 


Q 


practice  of  Trinifarians,  as  "  Illiberal  and  unjust."     (See 
p.  ler.*)     Upon  raj  head  also   chiefly   falls   the   charge, 
which   (Preface,  p.  vi.)  he  directs  against  the  Unitarians  of 
Glasgow  in  general,  of  "  grossly  misrepresenting"  many  of 
the   sentiments  held   by    the    Orthodox,   of* causing  "the 
weak,  the  wavering,   and   the   ill-informed"  to  become  the 
"  dupes"   of  this  misrepresentation,   and   of  leading  them 
"  a  prey  to  the  wiles  of  sophistry,  and  the  imposing  in- 
fluence   of    high    pretensions    to    learning    and    candour." 
Such  accusations  from  so  respectable  a  quarter  demand  our 
most  serious  reflection ;  and,  having  impartially  considered 
how  far  they  apply  to  us,  we  ought  to  come  forward,  either 
to  vindicate  ourselves  with  modest  firmness,  or  to  retract 
our  assertions  in   t!ie  same  publick  manner,   in  which  they 
have  been  advanced. 

Besides,  Mr.  Wardlaw's  discourses  have  been  honoured, 
as  they  deserved,  with  great  attention  and  countenance  ; 
and,  having  been  widely  circulated  by  a  large  impression, 
are,  I  understand,  now  generally  affirmed  to  be  unanswera- 
ble. If  therefore  we  continue  to  maintain  our  former  prin- 
ciples, we  are  bound  to  show  that  his  triumph  is  not  so 
complete.  This  is  necessary,  not  only  to  preserve  the 
sentiments,  which  we  dearly  value,  from  contempt,  decay, 
and  reprobation,  but  to  prove,  that  we  do  not  adhere  to 
them  through  wilful  blindness  and  obstinate  aversion  to  the 
truth. 

Though  compelled  to  engage  in  this  controversy  against 
my  inclination,  I  shall  be  supported  by  the  hope,  that  my 
labour  will  not  be  bestowed  in  vain.  In  order  that  Unita- 
rianism  may  be  gratefully  and  cordially  embraced,  it  is 
only  requisite  that  the  arguments  for  and  against  it  be  im- 
partially   studied.      The    moderation,  candour,    and  good 

■^  The  references  tlioughout  the  voliiitie  have  been  altered,  to  apph 
(o  the  Boston  edition  of  fVurdlaw's  Discourses. 


sense,  which  the  inhabitants  of  this  place  have  in  general 
evinced,  whenever  the  principles  of  Unitarianism  have 
been  brought  before  them,  and  the  uniform  civility  and 
kindness,  which  I  have  reason  thankfully  to  acknowledge 
in  persons  of  all  descriptions,  with  whom  I  have  had  an} 
acquaintance,  encourage  me  to  expect,  that  by  some  (ew  at 
least  my  publication  will  be  perused  with  attention,  a  id 
that  the  statement  of  the  evidence  in  favour  of  each  of  the 
opposite  systems  will  thus  be  effectual  in  leading  them  to 
the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus. 

Having  heard  Mr.  Wardlaw's  discourses  with  great 
interest,  and  afterwards  read  them  with  great  care,  I  have 
found  much  to  admire,  but  nothing  to  change  my  conviction 
of  the  strict  unity  of  God,  and  the  subordination  of  Jesus 
Christ.  I  have  no  doubt  that  the  delivery  of  them  pro- 
ceeded from  laudable  motives.  It  gives  me  great  pleasure 
to  express  the  approbation  due  to  the  eloquence,  with 
which  they  are  composed,  and  the  powers  of  reasoning, 
which  they  display.  I  heartily  join  in  the  universal  con- 
fession, that  the  Trinitarian  system  could  not  have  been 
more  ably  defended.  Mr.  Wardlaw  has  shown  peculiar 
judgment  in  confining  himself  to  those  arguments,  whicli 
have  usually  been  considered  as  clear  and  decisive,  instead 
of  bringing  forward  all  the  passages  of  Scripture,  which 
have  been  conceived  to  bear  remotely  upon  the  subject, 
and  by  insisting  upon  which  other  advocates  have  weak- 
ened the  cause  they  intended  to  support.  Whilst  1  have 
been  pleased  with  the  ingenuity  and  alertness  displayed  in 
defending  points  of  difficult  and  abstract  speculation,  I 
have  been  edified  by  the  useful  observations  of  a  practical 
nature,  which  are  scattered  through  the  volume,  and  which, 
I  would  hope,  may  redeem  it  from  oblivion,  when  men  have 
learned  to  value  plain  truths,  pertaining  to  life  and  godli- 
ness, above  what  is  mysterious  and  inexplicable. 


Having  willingly  given  to  these  discourses  the  commeu- 
dation  which  they  merit,  let  me  now  be  permitted  to  state 
in  what  respecls  I  think  them  defective.  Mr.  Wardlaw 
affirms  solemnly  (p.  93.)  that  his  only  object  is  truth  ; 
and,  doubtless,  the  defence  of  the  Calvinistick  doctrines, 
which  he  believes  to  be  true,  was  his  only  object.  But 
there  is  a  wide  difference  between  defending  a  particular 
system,  previously  assumed  as  true,  and  pursuing  truth 
independently  of  system, — a  difference,  which  will  mate- 
rially affect  the  manner,  in  which  a  man  states  his  own 
arguments,  and  views  the  arguments  of  others.  Mr. 
Wardlaw's  whole  style  and  language  in  this  controversy 
show,  that  he  has  never  put  his  mind  into  that  state  of 
cahn  and  impartial  deliberation,  which  is  necessary  to 
collect  and  arrange  the  proofs  on  either  side,  and  to  judge 
in  favour  of  which  opinion  the  evidence  preponderates. 
On  the  contrary,  he  has  set  out  with  a  bold,  undaunted, 
and  impetuous  zeal  for  a  certain  system  ;  and,  believing 
this  system  to  be  true,  and  that  "  with  its  establishment 
and  progress  are  connected  the  glory  of  God  and  the  salva- 
tion of  men,"  (Preface,  p.  vii.)  he  exerts  his  utmost  powers 
to  impress  it  upon  the  mind,  and  labours  to  fortify  his 
argument  hy  bringing  out  all  the  images  and  strong  expres- 
sions, all  the  affecting  and  solemn  tones,  all  the  facts  and 
allusions,  all  the  faults  and  errours  of  his  opponents,  by 
which  he  can  strike  his  hearers  with  astonishment  and 
horronr  at  the  foil}',  the  blindness,  the  perverseness  of  those, 
who  refuse  to  be  converted  by  such  brilliant  and  decisive 
evidence.  That  an  orthodox  preacher  should  have  re- 
course to  these  expedients  in  order  to  rouse  the  languid 
conviction  of  his  own  flock,  may  be  perfectly  proper;  but 
they  are  utterly  subversive  of  that  temper  of  cool,  patient, 
and  unbiassed  investigation,  which  may  be  expected  in  one. 


6- 

who  makes  it  his  "simple  and  exclusive  object"  to  ascer- 
tain Truth. 

We  find  also  in  Mr.  Wardlaw's  volume  a  kind  of  man- 
agement  and  generalship,  which  a  Votary  of  Truth  would 
scorn.  Having  very  few  proofs  to  adduce,  he  makes  the 
best  use  of  what  he  has ;  brings  them  forward  many  dif- 
ferent times,  dwells  upon  them  at  great  length,  turns  them 
about,  and  shows  them  in  the  most  pleasing  variety  of 
lights.  Yet,  lest  after  all  they  should  fail  to  make  a  suffi- 
cient impression,  he  takes  care  to  inform  his  hearers,  that 
these  are  only  a  specimen  of  what  he  might  have  brought 
forward  ;  the  passages,  which  contain  his  doctrine,  are  so 
numerous,  that  he  should  weary  their  patience  and  exceed 
his  own  strength,  if  he  were  to  produce  them  all,  and  hence 
he  is  obliged  to  select  a  few  of  the  more  prominent.  This 
"principle  of  selection,"  as  Mr.  Wardlaw  calls  it,  I 
fear  I  shall  have  frequent  occasion  to  expose,  and  to  show 
that,  where  he  professes  merely  to  bring  out  a  sample,  he 
has  nearly  or  entirely  exhausted  his  store. 

Another  manoeuvre,  by  which  Mr.  Wardlaw  guards  his 
readers  against  the  seductions  of  Unitarianism,  is  this. 
Instead  of  presenting  a  fair  and  full  view  of  the  Unitarian 
system  in  its  leading  principles  and  general  aspects,  he 
makes  it  his  object  to  bring  into  notice  every  thing  absurd 
or  dangerous,  that  was  ever  written  by  a  Unitarian.  In- 
deed, through  zeal  to  collect  all  the  offensive  matter  to  be 
found  in  Unitarian  publications,  he  has  in  one  instance, 
at  least  as  the  passage  will  be  applied  by  his  readers, 
violated  fact.  After  some  very  excellent  remarks  on  the 
impropriety  of  indulging  a  presumptuous  rashness  in  the 
pursuit  of  truth,  he  quotes  a  passage  from  the  Appendix 
to  the  Life  of  Priestley,  showing  with  what  indifference 
this  fearless  temerity  enables  a  man  to  contemplate  the 
conclusion,  that  there  is  no  God.     (See  p.   168.)     If  he 


6 

had  turned  to  the  title-page  of  the  volume,  and  page  iv 
of  the  preface,  he  would  have  seen,  that  the  author, 
whose  words  he  has  quoted  without  mentioning  any  name 
except  that  of  Priestley,  was  Mr.  Thomas  Cooper,  Presi- 
dent Judge  of  the  fourth  district  of  Pennsylvania;  and, 
if  he  had  made  the  inquiry  which  became  him  before 
producing  this  passage  as  an  illustration  of  the  spirit  che- 
rished by  Unitarians,  he  woidd  have  learned  that  Judge 
Cooper  is  7iot  a  Unitarian.  To  the  odium  and  ridicule, 
which  may  be  excited  by  such  attempts.  Unitarians  are 
from  the  nature  of  their  principles  peculiarly  exposed. 
Since  they  encourage  free  inquiry  to  a  far  greater  extent 
than  any  other  sect  of  Christians,  and,  though  united  in 
maintaining  a  few  great  principles,  allow  a  variety  of  opi- 
nion upon  minor  topicks,  individual  authors  often  espouse 
sentiments  and  employ  language,  to  which  the  great  body 
would  refuse  their  sanction.  It  is  easy  for  a  nibbling  ad- 
versary to  seize  hold  of  these  peculiarities,  and  to  drag 
them  into  open  day.  But  a  generous  disputant  will  despise 
the  low  trick  of  gravely  refuting  the  fancies,  mistakes,  or 
hasty  conclusions  of  individual  writers,  instead  of  consid- 
ering the  broad  principles  espoused  by  the  whole  party. 
What  a  long  train  of  grotesque  figures  might  /  summon  to 
decorate  ray  triumph,  if  I  were  to  collect  the  rash  or  fool- 
ish expressions  of  individual  Trinitarians,  and  to  enter  into 
a  minute  discussion  of  their  bearings  and  consequences. 
The  Comedy  of  Errours  would  be  so  protracted,  that  the 
world  itself  would  scarcely  contain  the  books  that  should  be 
written. 

Another  expedient  of  Mr.  Wardlaw's  to  excite  contempt 
towards  the  doctrines  of  Unitarians  is  the  frequent  use  of 
Notes  of  Admiration,  which  are  exhibited  either  single, 
double,  or  treble  (!  !!  !!!)  so  as  to  form  a  graduated  scale, 
by  which  every  person,  who  has  sense  enough  (o  count  One, 


TwOj  Three,  may  estimate  the  precise  quantity  of  folly  in 
the  sentiment  exposed.  But  if  a  phrase  or  opinion  is  really 
ridiculous,  why  may  it  not  be  left  to  make  its  own  impres- 
sion? What  occasion  is  there  to  render  it  ridiculous  by 
such  an  apparatus?  Is  it  not  enough,  that  a  poor  Unitarian 
critick  should  be  called,  ignorant,  extravagant,  sophistical, 
and  credulous  ?  Must  he  also  hear  his  translations  repeated 
from  the  Pulpit  in  an  affected  tone  of  astonishment,  or  see 
them  issuing  from  the  Press  bristled  round  with  Dashes  and 
Notes  of  Admiration  ? 

Those  who  know  the  usual  mildness  and  urbanity  of  Mr. 
Wardlaw's  manners,  may  naturally  expect,  that  the  same 
amiable  temper  should  pervade  a  work,  having  an  immedi- 
ate reference  to  the  nature  and  design  of  Christianity.  But, 
with  the  exception  of  a  few  gleams  of  benevolent  compas- 
sion for  his  opponents,  he  has  not  offended  against  the  "  an- 
cient and  fundamental  rules  of  theological  controversy," 
either  by  the  neglect  of  contumelious  language,  or  by  avoid- 
ing positiveness  and  dogaiatism.  To  the  charges  of  impi- 
ety^ obstinacy,  disitigenuousness,  mildness,  &c.  so  often 
preferred  against  Unitarians,  we  ought  not  to  be  insensible. 
But  every  indulgence  should  be  allowed  to  one,  who  con- 
ceives that  his  most  important  principles  are  basely  and 
violently  attacked,  especially  if  he  thinks  that  they  are  in 
any  danger  of  being  overthrown.  Instead  therefore  of  en- 
tertaining the  least  particle  of  resentment,  I  would  adopt  the 
pathetick  and  forcible  apology  of  St.  Augustine  for  the  er- 
ronrs  of  his  opponents;  "Illi  saeviant  in  vos,  qui  nesciunt 
quo  cum  labore  verum  inveniatur,  et  quam  difficile  cavean- 
tur  errores.  Illi  in  vos  saeviant,  qui  nesciunt  quam  rarum 
et  arduum  sit,  carnalia  phantasmata  piae  mentis  serenitate 
superare.  Illi  in  vos  saeviant,  qui  nesciunt  quantis  gemi- 
tiijus  et  suspiriis  fiat,  ut  quantulacunque  parte  possit  intel- 


8 

ligi  Deus.  Postremo,  illi  in  vos  saeviant,  qui  nullo  tali  ef- 
rore  decepti  sunt,  qnali  vos  deceptos  vident."* 

The  only  use,  which  I  wish  to  make  of  Mr.  Wardlaw's 
petulant  expressions,  is  to  be  more  on  my  guard  against 
the  admission  of  similar  language  into  my  own  pages.  Al- 
though I  cannot  venture  to  make  any  promise  of  greater 
moderation,  yet  it  is  my  intention  in  the  following  reply,  in 
general  to  answer  only  the  arguments  in  Mr.  Wardlaw's 
publication,  leaving  the  contumely  for  those,  who  choose 
to  defile  themselves  with  it. 

Another  principle,  which  I  have  laid  down  for  myself, 
is  to  vindicate  those  doctrines  alone,  in  maintaining  which 
all  Unitarians  are  agreed,  without  entering  into  the  discus- 
sion of  the  subordinate  questions,  concerning  which  they 
differ  among  themselves.  This  method  is  not  only  neces- 
sary in  a  work,  which  professes  to  be  a  vindication  of  Uni- 
tarianism,  but  it  has  the  advantage  of  greatly  abridging 
the  labour  both  for  myself  and  for  my  readers.  According 
to  this  plan,  many  large  portions  of  Mr.  Wardlaw's  book, 
consisting  of  criticisms  on  "  The  Improved  Version,"  and 
discussions  of  opinions  which  do  not  affect  the  general 
principles  of  Unitarianism,  will  be  passed  over  without  any 
notice. 

I  think  it  probable,  that  the  chief  effect  produced  by 
this  controversy  will  be  a  conviction  in  the  minds  of  candid 
and   sensible  judges,  that  the  differences  of  sentiment  be- 

*  Let  those  rage  against  you,  who  know  not  with  what  labour  truth 
is  discovered,  and  with  what  difficulty  errours  are  avoided.  Let  those 
rage  againr.t  you,  who  know  not  how  rare  and  difficult  an  attainment  it 
is,  to  subdue  carnal  imaginations  by  the  serenity  of  a  pious  mind. 
Let  those  rage  against  you,  who  know  not  with  what  heavy  sighs  and 
groans  the  knowledge  of  God  is  even  in  the  least  degree  acquired. 
Let  those  rage  against  you,  who  have  never  been  deceived  by  such 
errours  as  they  observe  in  you. 


tween  the  two  contending  parties  are  much  less  than  is  com- 
monlj  supposed.  In  perusing  the  Discourses  of  my  oppo- 
nent, it  has  often  occurred  to  me,  that  his  Orthodoxy  is 
little  more  than  Unitarianism  in  a  Mist;  and,  if  our 
readers  shall  still  think,  that  there  is  any  thing  real  or  sub- 
stantial in  those  mysterious  tenets,  superadded  by  Mr. 
Wardlaw  to  the  plain  truths,  in  holding  which  we  are  both 
agreed,  I  trust  such  persons  will  however  acknowledge, 
that,  under  the  government  of  a  Being  infinitely  wise  and 
good,  it  is  impossible  that  the  everlasting  happiness  of 
mankind  should  depend  upon  their  perception  of  such  dim 
points  and  dusky  distinctions. 


is 


JO 


CHAPTER  I. 

oy    THE   liEKERAL     TRIKCIPLES     TO    BE     FOLLOWED     IN     INVESTIGATING 
THE   TRUTH    OF   RELIGIOUS   DOCTRINES. 

The  use  of  Reason  in  matters  of  religion  is  threefold  ; 
firsf,  to  derive  from  the  appearances  of  nature  the  proofs  of 
the  Existence,  the  Altiibufes,  the  Providence,  and  the 
IMoral  government  of  God  ;  secondly,  to  establish  the 
Truth,  Excellence,  and  Divine  Origin  of  the  Jewish  and 
Christian  Religions  ;  and  thirdly,  to  determine  the  senbe 
of  the  Sacred  Scriptures. 

The  use  of  Revelation  is  to  deliver  doctrines  and 
precepts,  highly  conducive  to  the  virtue  and  happiness  of 
mankind,  but  which,  unless  proceeding  immediately  from 
God,  would  be  either  unknown  or  little  regarded. 

When  the  Divine  Origin  of  the  Jewish  and  Christian 
Religions  has  been  proved  by  rational  evidence,  any  doc- 
trine, which  is  shown  by  a  just  interpretation  of  the  Scrip- 
tures to  be  contained  in  those  Religions,  ought  to  be 
received  as  indisputably  true. 

If  Reason  be  rightly  employed,  its  dictates  can  never 
be  in  opposition  to  the  testimony  of  Revelation.  On  the 
contrary.  Reason  and  Revelation  mutually  support  each 
other.  It  is  proper  therefore  to  illustrate  and  confirm 
every  religious  doctrine  by  appealing  both  to  the  assertions 
of  the  Scriptures,  and  to  the  appearances  of  Nature  and 
the  course  of  Providence. 

To  these  propositions,  I  presume,  Mr.  Wardlaw  will 
readily  assent.  They  express  the  principles,  upon  which 
he  appears  in  general  to  have  proceeded  in  the  manage- 
ment of  his  various  arguments.  These  principles  are 
also    universally   acknowledged  among   Unitarians.     Con- 


11 

cerning   preliminaries    therefore   we    are   upon  the  whole 
agreed.     We  appeal   to  reason   and  to  the  Scriptures   for 
the  proofs   of  our    respective  doctrines,  assigning  to  each 
the  province,    which   I   have  marked  out.      Mr.  Wardlaw 
indeed   is  not  perfectly  accurate    in   the  statejnent  of  his 
own   grounds    of  argument  ;    in    his  Preface,   (p.  ix.)    he 
observes,  that  "  in  defending  what   he  conceives  to  be  the 
essential  articles  of  Scripture  Truth    he  has  confined  him- 
self entirely  to  the  Scriptures  themselves;''  but  in  many 
parts  of  his  work  he  endeavours    to    confirm   his    opinions 
by  the    evidence  of  facts.     Thus,  in   his  first  Discourse, 
(p.  5 — 8,)    he  adduces  the  evidence  for  the  Unify  of  God 
fro7n  the  Uniformity  of  plan  in  the  material  creation  ; 
and  in  the  8th,  (p.  224,)   after  having  maintained  the   Doc- 
trine of    Atonement    chiefly  upon   Scripture  grounds,  he 
proposes  to  confirm  it  by  "  another  branch  of  evidence,'^ 
namely,   «  the  moral  effects,  which    it  is  fitfed  to  produce, 
and  to  which  the  faith  of  i(  has  uniformly  given  birth."     I 
mention  these  circumstances,  not  for  the  sake  of  carping  at 
minute  inconsistencies,  but  on  account   of  the   importance 
of  accuracy  and  precision  as  to  the  principles  of  our  rea- 
soning,  and  because  I  shall   probably   employ,  to   confirm 
my  own    views   of  the    doctrines   of   the   Scriptures,  that 
evidence,  the  use   of  which   Mr.  Wardlaw  disclaims  in  his 
Preface,  though  he    has  repeatedly   brought  it  forward  in 
his  Discourses. 

As  I  am  anxious,  that  our  readers  should  not  only  per- 
ceive the  errours  and  false  reasonings  contained  in  Mr. 
Wardlaw's  publication,  but  should  derive  from  it  whatever 
benefit  and  improvement  it  is  adapted  to  afford,  I  would 
direct  their  serious  attention  to  the  admirable  observations 
relating  to  the  pursuit  of  Truth,  which  occupy  a  large 
portion  of  the  6th  Discourse.* 

*  In  this  part  ofhis  work,  (p.  167.)  Mr.  Wardlaw  charges  me  with  illibe^ 
rality  and  injustke  for  having  said  in  my  Sermon  on  the  Grounds  of  Uai- 


12 

• 

That  "  in  bringing  either  sentiments  or  practices  to  the 
test  of  God's  word,  it  should  be  our  sincere  desire  to  have 
our  minds  divested  of  all  prejudice,  so  that  we  may  come 
to  the  Bible,  not  with  a  view  to  find  confirmation  of  opin- 
ions previously  formed,  but  with  humble  and  earnest 
solicitude  after  an  answer  to  Pilate's  question,  What  is 
Truth  ?"  that,  in  the  investigation  of  truth,  we  should  be 
sedulously  on  our  guard  against  the  deceitfulness  of  our 
own  hearts,  and  "  fervently  implore  the  enlightening  influ- 
ence of  the  Holy  Spirit  ;"  that  we  should  retain  on  our 
minds  a  constant,  deep,  and  humble  sense  of  our  weakness 
and  liableness  to  err,"  and  avoid  that  "  daring  and  pre- 
sumptuous rashness,"  so  "gratifying  to  the  self-complacent 
vanity  of  the  human  heart,"  bijt  so  contrary  to  the  spirit 
both  of  true  Christianity  and  of  sound  Philosophy;  that  we 
are  apt  to  be  misled  by  attachments  not  only  to  what  is  old 
and  lon^  established,  but  likewise  to  what  is  new  and 
what  is  singular  ;  and  that  we  are  often  biassed  not  merely 

tarian  Dissent,  that,  "  thinking  it  unsafe  to  make  faith  the  result  of 
rational  inquiry,  the  Trinitarian  determines  to  ground  it  upon  early 
prejudice."  But  is  it  not  a  well  known  fact,  that  Trinitarians  do 
coinmonly  inculcate  upon  their  children  the  chief  Doctrines  of  Calvin- 
ism, before  they  are  capable  of  comprehending  and  appreciating  the 
evidence,  by  which  those  Doctrines  are  supported  ?  And  is  not  the 
motive,  (as  I  have  stated  in  my  Sermon,)  the  benevolent  motive  of  this 
conduct,  that  the  parents  are  apprehensive  that  their  children  will 
probably  never  embrace  the  Calvinistick  tenets  at  all,  if  they  are  not 
impressed  upon  their  minds  at  the  earliest  age  ?  The  fact  then  being 
as  I  have  represented,  I  imagine  1  have  been  unfortunate  in  the  manner 
of  stating  it.  If  so,  I  can  only  wish  all  readers  of  my  Sermon  in  future 
to  contemplate  the  simple  fact,  and  to  correct  the  unfavourable  impres- 
sion arising  from  the  improper  manner.  At  the  same  time  I  must 
observe,  that  I  had  affixed  a  note  to  the  part  of  my  Sermon,  in  which  the 
passage  so  offensive  to  iMr.  Wardlaw  is  contained,  excepting  the  Indepen- 
dants  and  the  Baptists  in  some  degree  from  being  classed  with  those,  tu 
whom  my  observations  applied. 


13 

hy  prejudices  of  the  understanding,  but  also  by  predis^ 
posiiions  against  "  wiiatever  is  humbling  to  human  pride 
and  whatever  is  mortifying  to  human  corruption  ;"  these 
are  maxims,  of  the  truth  and  importance  of  which  I  am 
strongly  sensible,  and  which  I  wish  may  be  impressed  upon 
the  mind  of  every  one  of  my  readers.  Whilst  I,  as  well 
as  Mr.  Wardlaw,  "  am  no  enemy  to  free  inquiry,"  1  am 
convinced,  that  the  most  rational  way  of  using  Reason  is 
to  employ  it  with  caution  and  with  modesty.         • 

The  concluding;  observations  of  this  discourse  are  so 
excellent  and  important,  that  I  shall  take  the  liberty  of 
quoting  them  at  length. 

"  All  truth  is  good.  The  truth  revealed  in  *  the  glorious 
gospel  of  the  blessed  God,'  is  peculiarly  good  : — good  in 
its  own  nature  ; — good  in  its  holy  and  happy  influence  ; — 
good  in  all  its  present,  and  in  all  its  eternal  consequences. 
Let  me  exhort  you,  my  brethren,  to  hold  it  fast  purely^ 
firmly,  meekly,  practically. — Purely  ;  without  any  admix- 
ture of  errour : — -firmly ;  not  '  halting  between  two  opinions,' 
fluctuating  and  undecided,  or  imagining  that  truth  and 
errour  may  be  embraced  and  held  with  equal  safety  : — 
meekly,  maintaining  it  with  an  humble  consciousness  of 
your  own  natural  blindness,  and  a  feeling  of  your  entire 
obligation  to  the  enlightening  Spirit  of  God  ; — with 
benevolent  affection  to  the  persons  of  your  opponents  ; 
and  with  the  patience  and  gentleness  of  Christ : — practical- 
ly ;  exemplifying,  in  the  whole  of  your  conduct,  personal 
and  social,  private  and  publick,  in  the  family,  in  the  church, 
and  in  the  world,  its  renewing,  and  purifying,  and  gladden- 
ing eflScacy. 

"  To  all,  I  would  say,  and  say  with  the  earnestness  of 
aflfactionate  entreaty,  '  Search  the  Scriptures.'  Examine 
them  for  yourselves.     Examine   them  with   a   seriousness 


14 

becoming  the  importance  of  the  inquiry,  and  the  magni- 
tude of  those  consequences  that  are  necessarily  connected 
with  it.  Derive  no  foolish  and  vain  excuse  for  neglecting 
to  do  this,  from  those  differences  of  sentiment  which  yon 
may  observe  to  subsist  amongst  the  professed  followers  of 
Jesus  Christ.  The  sentiments  of  olhers  are  nothing  to 
you.  It  is  not  of  others,  but  of  yourselves^  that  you  must 
give  an  account  to  God.  Let  each  individual,  therefore, 
attend  to  the  gospel,  as  if  he  were  himself  the  only  creature 
to  whom  it  is  addressed.  O  !  beware  of  satisfying  your- 
selves at  present,  with  such  excuses  as,  you  must  be  con- 
scious, will  never  bear  the  scrutiny  of  the  great  day. — 
Your  immortal  souls  are  at  stake.  Be,  therefore,  in  earnest. 
Take  nothing  upon  trust.  What  you  bear  from  us,  or 
from  others,  examine  by  the  light  of  the  Divine  word.  If 
Tve  speak  not  according  to  that  word,  there  is  no  light  in  us. 
It  is  not  what  me  say,  but  what  God  says,  that  is  '  able  to 
save  the  soul.'  " 

That  we  should  hold  the  truth  jmreJy,  firmly,  meekly, 
and  practically,  is  a  sentiment,  in  which  all  good  Chris- 
tians, both  Trinitarians  and  Unitarians,  will  cordially  unite. 
But  it  is  of  especial  consequence,  that  we  should  hold  it 
PRACTiCALLV,  Hot  allowing  the  articles  of  religious  faith 
to  lie  dormant  in  our  minds,  after  we  have  once  received 
them,  or  to  float  before  our  fancies  as  subjects  of  amusing 
speculation,  but  applying  them  daily  and  hourly  to  the  im- 
provement of  Out  hearts  and  the  regulation  of  our  conduct. 
It  is  only,  when  thus  applied,  that  Truth  has  any  value  ; 
nay,  it  is  only  when  thus  applied,  that  we  can  hold  truth 
at  all.  For  however  Arm  may  be  our  belief,  and  however 
lively  our  conceptions,  when  we  come  fresh  from  the  con- 
templation of  any  religious  subject,  3  et,  if  we  do  not  com- 
bine  our  knowledge  with  habitual  practice,  the  impression 


15 

upon  the  understanding  will  become   fainter   and   fainter, 
until  at  last  it  will  appear  more   fleeting   and    unsubstantial 
than  a  passing  meteor.     If  therefore  Unitarians  maintain,  as 
one  of  their  distinguishing    principles,  that   the    Father  is 
the  only  proper  object  of  religious    worship,  let    them    be 
careful,  that  they  devoutly  worship  the   Father.     If  they 
believe,  that,  one  of  the   principal   objects   of  the  mission 
of  Jesus  Christ  was  to   deliver    his   admirable    precepts  of 
morality,  let  them  obey  those  precepts  ;  that  another  great 
end  of  his  coming  was  to  set  before  mankind  an  example  of 
perfect   virlue,  let   them    imitate    that   example  ;  that  the 
chief  design  of  his  death  and  resurrection  was  to  establish 
the  doctrine  of  a  future  stale   of  retribution,  let  them  pre- 
pare for   that  state   of  retribution  ;  that  a   good   life  is  the 
condition,  upon  which   alone   God    will   grant   pardon  and 
accepfance  and    eternal   bliss,  let  them    lead  a    good  life. 
We  well   know,  that  a  man    may  maintain   these  opinions 
most  strenuously,  that  he  may  talk  loudly  and  reason  learn- 
edly about  their  truth  and  beautiful  simplicity,  about  their 
immediate  and  necessary  influence    in  cherishing  love   to 
God  and  love  to   man,  and    yet    may   neglect    to   examine 
whether  they  have   produced    these    excellent  fruits  in  his 
own  heart,  and,  while  he    is  labouring  with  unwearied  zeal 
to  reform  and  enlighten  others,  may  himself  become  a  cast- 
away. 

Although  agreeing  in  general  with  my  opponent  concern- 
ing the  principles,  by  which  we  ought  to  be  guided  in  deter- 
mining the  truth  of  religious  doctrines,  yet  there  are  some 
particulars,  in  which  his  work  is  calculated  to  convey  false 
ideas  to  the  minds  of  his  readers,  and  others,  which  he  has 
not  discussed  so  fully  and  clearly  as  their  importance  seems 
to  require.  I  think  it  necessary,  therefore,  to  consider  in 
the  three  following  Chapters,  the  regard  actually  paid  to 


16 

the  Scriptures  by  Unitarians;  the  proper  method  of  ascer- 
taining the  sense  of  the  Scriptures ;  and  the  propriety  of 
believing  in  mysteries.* 

■  [*  These  cautions  against  allowing  our  religious  belief  to  terminate 
in  speculation,  are  certainly  valuable.  In  the  principles,  however,  men- 
tioned by  Mr.  Yates  as  distinguishing  Unitarians,  he  seems  rather  to 
have  enumerated  the  peculiarities  of  a  sect  of  those  Christians,  rather 
than  to  have  given  those  general  views  which  are  common  to  all. 
Mr.  Yates  belongs,  we  believe,  to  that  denomination  of  Unitarians 
who  hold  the  simple  humanity  of  Christ.  It  is,  however,  only  in  a 
few  passages  that  his  peculiar  bias  is  discovered.  In  general  he  means 
by  Unitarianisra  simply  the  doctrine  of  the  perfect  Unity  of  God,  the 
Fatlier  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  together  with  those  doctrines,  and 
no  others,  which  necessarily  flow  from  that  great  truth. — Editor.] 


17 


CHAPTER  II. 


ON     THE     REGARD     PAID     TO      THE     SACRED     SCRIPTURES    BY     UNITA- 
RIANS. 

To  some  very  excellent  observations,  tending  to  show 
the  propriety  of  seeking  the  Doctrines  of  the  Christian 
Religion  in  the  Apostolick  Epistles,  as  Avell  as  in  the  His- 
torical Books  of  the  New  Testament,  Mr.  Wardlaw  sub- 
joins these  words;  (p.  166;)  "I  earnestly  wish  my  Unita- 
rian friends,  (for  such  I  desire  to  esteem  them  as  fellow 
men,  although  I  cannot  give  them  the  right  hand  of  fellow- 
ship as  Christian  brethren,)  to  consider  this  with  becoming 
seriousness,  and  to  beware  ; — and  it  is  my  fervent  prayer, 
that  others  may  be  preserved  from  that  fatal  delusion,  which 
it  is  my  present  object  to  expose ;  that  they  may  be  saved 
from  treating  with  unseemly  levity  the  word  of  the  most 
High  God,  and  may  continue  to  approach  it,  as  they  ap- 
proach to  its  Divine  Author  himself  'with  reverence  and 
godly  fear.'  " 

This  benevolent  wish,  when  I  first  came  to  it,  filled  me 
with  a  sudden  glow  of  gratitude,  and  I  cordially  joined  in 
the  spirit  of  Mr.  Wardlaw's  prayer,  extending  it  to  pro- 
fessed Christians  of  both  the  opposed  denominations.  For 
I  apprehend,  that  both  parties  are  chargeable  with  mani- 
festing a  culpable  disrespect  for  the  Bible,  by  being  far  too 
negligent  in  the  study  of  its  pages  as  well  as  in  the  practice 
of  its  precepts.  But,  whilst  I  confess  with  sorrow,  that 
Unitarians  do  not  in  general  apply  to  the  Scriptures  with 
sufficient  diligence,  humility,  and  seriousness,  yet  it  is  ne- 
cessary for  me  to  apprise  the  Reader,  that  Mr.  Wardlaw's 

4 


IS 


iangua2;e,  wlieie  he  speaks  of  their  principles  and  practice 
upon  this  subject,  is  adapted  to  make  a  verj  false  impression 
upon  his  mind. 

Mr.  Wardiaw  not  only  represeniS  the   Unitarians  as  for- 
cing the  Scriptures  by  racks,  and  screws,  and  all  the  instru- 
ments of  torture,    to  speak   a  language    agreeable  to    their 
system,   (p.  41.  65—68.  88.  141.  177,)  but  gives  it  out  in 
numerous  passages,  that,  after    they   have    used    the  most 
arbitrary  and  reprehensible  freedom  in  translating,  they  still 
pay  very  little  regard  to  the   authority  of  the  sacred  Au- 
(hors.     He  affirms,  (p.   106,)  that  "some  of  the    leaders 
of  Unitarianism   have  gone    so  very  far  as  to  charge  the 
New  Testament  writers,    and    particularly    the   author  of 
the  Epistle  to  the   Hebrews,  with  unappropriate    applica- 
tions of  Scripture,  far-fetched   analogies,   and  bungled  and 
inconclusive  reasonings."     He  quotes  a  passage   from  Mr. 
Belsham,  in  which  that  author   denies  the  doctrine  of  the 
Plenary  Inspiration  of  the  Scriptures ;  and  produces  seve- 
ral extracts  from  Dr.  Priestley's  "  History  of  Early  Opin- 
ions," in  which  he  advances  it  as  his  belief,  that  the  sacred 
writers  were  not  secure  from  errour,  either  with  respect  to 
facts  or  doctrines.     Mr.  Wardlaw  also  asserts,  that  the  ad- 
versaries of  the  Divinity  and  Atonement  of  Christ  in  gen- 
eral entertain  notions  respecting  the  inspiration  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures   equally    "vague    and   undefined;"    that,    "al- 
though they  do  not  express  themselves  with  the  same  decid- 
edness,  they  are   all    characterised    by  a  similar  laxity  of 
principle  on  this  important  point ;"  and  that  "  they  shake 
themselves  loose  of  the  Epistles  with  very  little  ceremony 
indeed."     (p.  160—162.) 

It  would  be  an  unfaithful  desertion  of  the  truth  I  have 
undertaken  to  defend,  if  I  were  to  admit  the  candour,  the 
fairness,  or  the  justice  of  these  statements.  It  it  my  duty 
to  present  the  reader  with   more    accurate   information  on 


19 

subjects,  upon  which  Mr.  AVardlaw  has  assumed  such  a 
bold  and  imperious  tone  of  reprehension. 

Whether  the  Plenary  Inspiration  of  the  Scriptures  be 
a  doctrine  of  the  Christian  Religion,  is  one  of  those 
questions,  upon  which  Unitarians  are  divided  in  opinion. 
It  would  therefore  be  inconsistent  with  my  present  design 
to  enter  into  the  discussion.  Bnt  it  is  totally  foreign  from 
the  inquiry  concerning  the  Trinity  of  Persons  in  the  God- 
head, and  the  Divinity  and  Atonement  of  Christ.  When 
Unitarians  endeavour  to  show,  that  the  Scriptures  do  not 
contain  these  doctrines,  they  always  suppose  their  Divme 
Authority  ;  and,  although,  for  the  reason  just  slated,  I  do 
not  espouse  any  particular  hypothesis,  yet  I  shall  conduct 
all  my  arguments  so  as  to  make  them  agreeable  to  the  high- 
est supposition  ever  advanced,  vis.  that  not  only  every 
sentiment  but  every  ivord  was  dictated  to  the  sacred  pen- 
men by  the  immediate  suggestion  of  God.  Upon  this 
subject  the  sentiments  of  the  Orthodox  have,  I  believe, 
been  no  less  at  variance  than  those  of  Unitarians  ;  and,  as 
Mr.  Wardlaw  has  quoted  a  number  of  passages  from  Dr. 
Priestley  and  Mr.  Belshara  in  order  to  convey  to  his 
readers  an  impression,  that  Unitarians  in  general  deny  the 
inspiration  of  the  Scriptures,  lest  by  the  testimony  of  (he 
Scriptures  their  tenets  should  be  overthro^^n,  so,  if  I  chose 
to  entangle  converts  by  such  an  artifice,  I  might  produce 
passages  to  the  same  effect  from  Jerome,  Episcopius,  Mr. 
William  Lowth,  and  other  eminent  Trinitarians,  to  intimate 
that  the  advocates  of  the  Orthodox  system  are  reduced  to 
the  same  necessity. 

The  intelligent  reader  is  now  apprised,  with  what  skill 
and  ingenuity  Mr.  Wardlaw  has  here  applied  that  "  prin- 
ciple of  select  ion, ^^  which  he  professes  to  Jiave  employed 
for  another  purpose,  /too  shall  select  a  few  quotations, 
which   may   serve  as  a  counterpart  to  liis,  and  show  what 


20 

degree  of  respect  Unitarians  have  really  entertained  for  the 
sacred    Scriptures. 

Whose  was  that  great  maxira,  which  Protestants  have 
so  often  repeated  with  a  noble  indignation,  in  reply  to  the 
pretensions  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  "  The  Bible,  the 
Bible,  the  Bible  only,  is  the  Religion  of  Protes- 
tants ?"  It  is  found  in  the  writings  of  the  ingenuous,  the 
high-minded  Chillingnorth,  who,  having  in  the  early  part 
of  his  life  wavered  with  a  modest  caution  between  difterent 
religious  system^,  at  length  settled  in  the  doctrines  of 
Socinianism.  Whose  was  that  otiier  senliiuent,  which  the 
Lovers  of  the  Bible  have  so  of(en  cited  with  admiration  and 
delight  ?  It  was  the  sentiment  of  that  bright  ornament  not 
merely  of  Unilarianism,  but  of  mankind,  the  universally 
revered  [>]iiiosopher,  Mr.  Locke,  who,  when  a  relation 
inquired  of  him,  what  was  the  shortest  and  surest  way  for  a 
young  gentleman  to  attain  a  true  knowledge  of  the  Christian 
Religion,  returned  this  answer  ;  "  Let  him  study  the  Holy 
Scripture,  especially  in  the  New  Testament.  Therein  are 
contained  the  words  of  eternal  life.  It  has  God  for  its 
AUTHOR  ;  salvation  for  its  end  ;  AND  truth,  with- 
out   ANY     mixture  of     ERROUR,  FOR    ITS    MATTER."       If 

Mr.  Wardlaw  wished  to  give  a  true  representation  of  the 
principles  and  practice  of  Unitarians,  why  did  he  not 
select  such  quotations  as  these,  in  addition  to  the  passages 
of  a  different  complexion  ? 

About  one  hundred  and  fifty  years  ago,  some  of  (he  most 
learned  Trinitarians  confessed,  that  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  was  not  founded  on  the  Scriptures,  but  on  the  tra- 
dition of  the  Church.  The  Unitarians  were  tlien  obliged 
to  maintain,  as  a  previous  step  to  the  establishment  of  their 
opinions,  that  the  Scriptures  are  the  only  infallible  rule 
whereby  to  determine  religious  controversies.  "  The  So- 
einians,^'  said  they,  "  are  of  a  contrary  mind.  Hath  the 
Holy  Scripture,    that  is,  hath  God,   said  it  ?    They  will 


21 

believe,  though  all  men  and  angels  confiadict  i(.  They  will 
always  prefer  the  infinite  wisdom  of  God,  before  Ihe  fallible 
dictates  of  human  or  angelick  reason."  Unitarian  Tracts, 
V.  I.  No.  9.  p.  4.  printed  in  1690.  Those,  who  have  the 
means  of  intimacy  with  Unitarians,  know,  that  there  are, 
and  always  have  been,  many  individuals  among  them,  who 
have  been  accustomed  to  spend  days  and  nights  with  inex- 
pressible satisfaction  and  delight  in  the  study  of  the  Sacred 
Volume.  Those,  who  are  versed  in  Theology,  know,  that 
the  Expositions  and  Commentaries,  written  upon  the  Books 
of  Scripture  by  Unitarians,  are  generally  acknowledged,  iu 
those  parts  at  least  which  have  not  a  reference  to  the  con- 
troverted doctrines,  to  possess  extraordinary  merit  ;  and 
that  the  works,  composed  by  Unitarians  to  vindicate  the 
Scriptures  against  the  objections  of  unbelievers,  are  singu- 
larly useful,  clear,  and  convincing.  Indeed,  were  it  not  for 
the  labours  of  such  men  as  Dr.  Lardner  and  other  learned 
Unitarian  authors,  we  could  scarcely  be  said  to  possess  the 
Word  of  God  at  all.  For  it  is  upon  the  proofs,  furnished 
and  stated  by  these  writers,  that  our  assurance  of  the 
Divine  Authority  of  the  Scriptures  now  principally  de- 
pends.* 

*  The  ability  and  success,  with  whicli  Unitarians  have  discussed 
the  Evidences  of  Revelation,  are  admitted  by  Mr.  Wardlavv  in  the  fol- 
lowing remarkable  passage  :  "  Many  a  time,  after  perusing  treatises 
containing  evidences  of  the  Divine  Authority  of  the  Christian  Religion, 
has  the  inquiry  forcibly  impressed  itself  on  my  mind.  Of  what  advan- 
tage is  all  this  to  the  Writer,  if  after  all  he  has  left  the  question  un- 
answered, or  wrongly  answered,  fVhat  the  Christian  Religinn  is  ?  The 
outworks  of  Christianity  have  been  often  most  ably  and  successfully 
defended,  while  that,  which  all  these  outworks  have  been  reared  by 
Providence  to  protect,  and  from  the  value  of  which  consequently  they 
derive  their  importance,  has  been  either  entirely  overlooked,  or  most 
erroneously  exhibited."  (p.  369.) 

Poor  Dr.  Lardner  !  He  continued  a  reprobate,  and  is  doomed  to  ever- 
lasting torment,  though  to  hira  under  Providence  we  in  a  great  mea- 
sure owe  our  Christianity  !  And,  if  such  excellent  men  as  he  studied  the 


22 

Notwithstanding  the  comparatively  small  number  of  the 
Unitarian  denomination,  I  doubt  whether  the  whole  body 
of  Orthodox  Christians  ever  presented  an  example  of  more 
ardent  and  indefatigable  zeal  in  the  study  of  the  Scriptures, 
than  that  of  the  able  and  upright  Dr.  Jebb,  who,  on  account 
of  his  serious  persuasion  of  the  truth  of  Unitarianism, 
resigned  the  honours,  the  emoluments,  and  the  hopes  of  a 
splendid  and  wealthy  Establishment,  and  who,  that  he  might 
qualify  himself  to  understand  better  the  language  of  the 
New  Testament,  committed  to  memory  the  whole  of  the 
Epistles  of  Paul  in  the   original  Greek. 

When  the  learned  Professor  Griesbach,  not  many  years 
ago,  was  preparing  to  present  to  the  world  an  accurate 
edition  of  the  New  Testament,  the  only  person  in  all  Eu- 
rope, who  came  forward  to  patronize  this  invaluable  work, 
was  a  Unitarian.  The  expenses  of  the  publication  were 
defrayed,  and  copies  of  the  new  and  correct  edition  of  the 
Greek  Testament  liberally  distributed,  by  a  late  illustrious 

Evidences  of  Revelation  so  long,  without  ever  perceiving  the  nature  of 
the  religion  they  were  employed  in  defending,  or  deriving  any  advan- 
tage from  their  labours,  what  benefit  is  likely  to  accrue  to  the  simple 
and  the  ignorant. 

[Mr.  Yates' expressions  with  regard  to  our  obligations  to  Dr.  Lard- 
ner,  seem  not  to  have  been  sufficiently  weighed.  He  means,  no  doubt, 
principally  to  say,  that  the  collection  of  ancient  testimonies  made  by 
this  great  critick,  is  absolutely  indispensable  to  the  complete  vindica- 
tion of  the  authenticity  and  genuineness  of  the  sacred  writings.  All 
Christians  we  suppose  will  readily  assent  to  this  position.  Mr.  Yates' 
words  may  be  construed,  hoMcver,  to  mean  more  than  this,  and  to 
imply,  that  what  was  done  by  Dr.  Lardner  could  have  been  done  by 
no  other  man.  But  sucli  a  sentiment,  if  it  was  so  intended,  is  surely 
hazarded  too  hastily ;  since  the  materials  for  such  a  work  as  the  Credi- 
bility would  still  exist  and  might  be  used,  however  unlikely  it  may 
appear,  that  a  man  of  such  profound  learning  and  admirable  judgment 
and  perl'ect  ingenuousness  would  again  be  found  to  devote  his  life  to  so 
immense  a  labour. — Editor.] 


23 

uobleman,*  who,  having  resigned  the  office  of  Prime  Min- 
ister of  Ihe  British  Empire,  was  happily  induced  to  direct 
his  attention  to  the  far  more  important  business  of  his  reli- 
gious instruction  and  edification,  and  who,  having  by  a  most 
serious  and  diligent  study  of  the  Evidences  and  Doctrines 
of  Christianity  been  converted  to  Unitarianism,  declared, 
that  he  derived  far  more  solid  comfort  and  intense  delight 
from  meditating  on  its  consolatory  truths  and  acting  upon 
its  holy  principles,  than  he  had  ever  experienced  in  the 
former  part  of  his  life  from  the  splendour  of  (he  Royal  court 
and  the  influence  of  the  most  elevated  rank  and  office. 

I  esteem  it  as  an  honourable  instance  of  the  regard  paid 
to  the  Scriptures  by  certain  individuals  of  the  Unitarian 
persuasion,  that  they  have  lately  attempted  an  Improved 
Version  of  the  New  Testament,  the  chief  excellence  of 
which  they  state  to  be,  that  it  is  translated  from  the  correct 
edition  of  the  original  Greek,  published  by  Dr.  Griesbach. 
No  candid  Christian  will  deny,  that  the  endeavour  at  least 
was  laudable  ;  but  the  censorious  may  easily  find  real  or 
supposed  defects  in  the  execution  of  so  difficult  an  under- 
taking, which  they  may  make  the  subjects  of  indecent  ridi- 
cule and  severitj^f 

The  last  example,  which  I  shall  cite  to  refute  the  charge 
of  a  general  disregard    to    the    authority  of  the  Scriptures 

*The  Duke  of  Grafton.  See  Belsliam's  Sermon  on  his  Death,  and 
Memoirs  of  Lindsey,  ch.  XI  :  also  Griesbach's  Preface  to  his  Greek 
Testament. 

[t  For  some  farther  observations  on  the  "  Improved  Version,"  the 
reader  may  consult  Part  III.  Chap.  IX.  of  this  volume.  He  will  there 
see,  how  unjustly  the  whole  body  of  Unitarians  are  made  responsible 
for  this  work,  the  production  of  some  individuals  only,  and  freely  and 
severely  animadverted  on  by  Unitarian,  as  well  as  other  ciiticks.  Its^ 
co|  merits  or  defects,  whatever  they  may  be,  have  no  proper  connexion 
with  the  great  doctrine  discussed  in  this  volume. — Editor.] 


:i 


24 

among  lj nilaiian-i,  is  tjiat  of  one  of  the  most  eminent  Eng-    j 
lish  divines,  Dr.  John  Taylor.     This  universally  respected 
author  was  the   Professor  of  Theology  in    the  Dissenting    j 
Academy   at    Warrington,  Avhere   many   of  the   Unitarian    | 
ministers,  now  living,  received  their  education.     He  always 
prefaced  his  Lectures  with  the  following  Charge  addressed    , 
to  his  pupils,  which  may  be  considered  as  a  fair  represen- 
tation of  the  views   and    sentiments  usually  maintained  by 
Uiiitarians  with  respect  to  the  pursuit  of  religious  truth. 

"  I.  I  do  solemnly  charge  you,  in  the  name  of  the  God  ] 
of  Truth,  and  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  is  the  Waj,  \ 
the  Truth,  and  the  Life,  and  before  whose  judgment-seat  i 
you  must  in  no  long  tiuie  appear,  that  in  all  your  studies  ; 
and  inquiries  of  a  religious  nature,  present  or  future,  you  | 
do  constantly,  carefully,  impartially,  and  conscientiously  i 
attend  to  evidence,  as  it  lies  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  or  in  i 
the  nature  of  things,  and  the  dictates  of  reason  ;  cautiously  | 
guarding  against  the  sallies  of  imagination,  and  the  fallacy  j 
of  ill-grounded  conjecture.  j 

"  H.    That  you  admit,  embrace,  or  assent  to  no  princi-    j 
pie,  or  sentiment,  by  me  taught  or   advanced,  but  only  so 
far  as  it  shall  appear  to  you  to  be  supported    and  justified 
by    proper    evidence    from    Revelation,   or    the  reason  of 
things. 

"in.  That,  if  at  any  time  hereafter,  any  principle  or 
sentiment,  by  me  taught  or  advanced,  or  by  you  admitted 
and  embraced,  shall,  upon  impartial  and  faithful  examina- 
tion, appear  to  you  to  be  dubious  or  false,  you  either 
suspect,  or  totally  reject  such  principle  or  sentiment. 

"  IV.  That  you  keep  your  mind  always  open  to  evi- 
dence.— That  you  labour  to  banish  from  your  breast  all 
prejudice,  prepossession,  and  party-zeal. — That  you  study 
to  live  in  peace  and  love  with  all  your  fellow  Christians, 
and  that  you  steadily  assert  for  yourself,  and    freely  allow 


25 

to  others,  the    unalienable   rights  of   judgment  and  con- 


science." 


I  hare  produced  these  instances,  not  for  the  sake  of 
boasting,  but  as  a  necessary  vindication  of  the  Unitarian 
body.  I  repeat,  that,  although  these  are  in  general  our 
convictions,  our  endeavours,  and  our  avowed  principles, 
we  do  not  always  go  to  the  Holy  Scriptures  with  those 
high  feelings  of  veneration  and  gratitude,  to  which  they 
are  entitled,  and  that  we  do  not  study  them  with  a  degree 
of  attention  and  assiduity  proportioned  to  the  inestimable 
importance  of  their  contents.  For  myself,  and  for  all,  I 
confess,  that  in  the  discharge  of  this,  as  well  as  of  every 
other  duty,  we  are  greatly  deficient,  and  stand  in  need  of 
the  forgiveness  and  long-suifering  of  our  merciful  Father  in 
heaven. 

I  should  not  be  satisfied  with  myself,  if  I  did  not  attempt 
likewise  to  do  justice  to  the  honoured,  injured  name  of 
Priestley,  whom  Mr.  Wardlaw  treats  throughout  his 
volume  (see  particularly,  p.  160 — 168.  175,  176)  with 
marked  disrespect,  arid  upon  whom  in  one  passage  (p.  176.) 
he  animadverts  "  in  the  severest  terms  of  reprehension." 
I  shall  not  however  plead  the  affectionate  esteem  of  those, 
who  adopted  his  sentiments,  who  partook  of  his  cheerful, 
kind,  and  instructive  conversation,  and  who  knew  from 
experience  that  gentleness  and  sweetness  of  manners  in  so- 
cial intercourse,  which  sometimes  converted  into  friends 
those,  who  had  entertained  the  strongest  prejudices  against 
him  on  account  of  his  religious  opinions :  it  would  be  said, 
that  such  witnesses  were  evidently  swayed  by  sectarian 
prepossessions.  Nor  shall  I  quote  the  high-wrought  eulo- 
gies of  foreign  literati :  for  it  would  be  replied,  that  these 
are  the  testimonies  of  mere  philosophers.  I  shall  quote 
the  words  of  Christian  Ministers,  who  differed  from  Dr. 
Priestley  in  religious  sentiment,  who  had  opportunities  of 

5 


26 

knowing  Ills  ieal  character  from  living  in  his  neighbour- 
hood,  and  who  froai  a  strong  sense  of  duty  bore  their  testi- 
mony to  his  worth,  when  the  popular  fury  was  at  its  height 
against  him. 

Dr.  Samuel  Parr,  in  learning  and  intellectual  attainments 
as  well  as  in  the  virtues  of  the  heart,  probably  the  brightest 
ornament  of  the  Established  Church  of  England,  has  then 
stated  in  the  following  terms  the  proper  mode  of  considering 
the  merits  of  Dr.  Priestley. 

"  Let  Dr.  Priestley,  indeed,  be  confuted,  where  he  is  mis- 
taken ;  let  him  be  exposed,  where  he  is  superficial ;  let 
him  be  repressed,  where  he  is  dogmatical ;  let  him  be  re- 
buked, where  he  is  censorious.  But  let  not  his  attainments 
be  depreciated,  because  they  are  numerous,  almost  without 
a  parallel.  Let  not  his  talents  be  ridiculed,  because  they 
arc  superlatively  great.  Let  not  his  morals  be  vilified,  be- 
cause they  are  correct  without  austerity,  and  exemplary 
without  ostentation  ;  because  they  present,  even  to  common 
observers,  the  innocence  of  a  Hermit  and  the  simplicity  of 
a  Patriarch,  and  because  a  philosophick  eye  will  at  once 
discover  in  them  the  deep-fixed  root  of  virtuous  principle, 
and  the  solid  trunk  of  virtuous  habit." — Letter  from  Ireno- 
polls  to  the  Inhabitants  of  Eleutheropolis. 

Soon  after  the  disgraceful  riots  at  Birmingham,  the  As- 
sociated Dissenting  Ministers  of  two  neighbouring  coun- 
ties presented  to  Dr.  Priestley  an  Address,  expressive  of 
their  common  concern  at  Ihe  horrid  outrages,  which  he  had 
sustained.  I  transcribe,  below,  its  commencement.  Alas 
for  the  man,  who  can  read  it  without  emotion! 

"Address  to  tfie  Rev.  Dr.  Priestley. 

"  SIR, 

"  V/e  the  dissenting  ministers  of  Nottinghamshire  and 
Derbyshire,  of  the   Presbyterian,  Independent,  and  Bap- 


27 

list  persuasions,  associated  as  brethren  and  interested  in 
the  common  cause  of  religious  liberty,  present  our  very 
respectful  and  affectionate  condolence  for  the  outrages  to 
which  y^ou  have  been  subject.  Though  many  of  us  differ 
from  you  in  matters  of  religious  faith,  we  trust  that  we 
have  belter  learnt  the  spirit  of  our  excellent  religion,  than 
not  to  esteem  in  you  that  character  of  piety  and  virtue, 
which  is  the  best  fruit  of  every  faith,  and  that  ardour  for 
truth  and  manly  inquiry,  which  Christianity  invites,  and 
which  no  form  of  Christianity  ought  to  shrink  from  ;  as 
well  as  to  admire  those  eminent  abilities,  and  that  unwea- 
ried perseverance,  which  give  activity  to  the  virtues  of 
your  heart,  and  to  which,  in  almost  every  walk  of  science, 
your  country  and  the  world  have  been  so  much  indebted. 
"  That  such  virtues  and  such  abilities  should  invite 
persecution,  is  a  melancholy  proof,  that  neither  philosophy 
nor  Christianity  have  yet  taught  their  most  dignified  and 
amiable  lessons  to  our  country.  But  though  man  will  feel, 
and  your  enemies  have  attacked  you  in  that  way  wherein 
you  feel  perhaps  most  sensibly,  yet  we  rejoice  to  find  in 
you  that  decent  magnanimity,  that  Christian  bearing,  which 
I'aises  you  superiour  to  suffering;  ami  that  a  regard  to 
God,  to  truth,  and  to  another  world,  have  even  irom  the 
bosom  of  affliction  enabled  you  to  extract  a  generous  con- 
solation. Whether  in  your  religious  inquiries  you  have 
erred  or  no,  we  firmly  believe,  that  truth  and  the  best  in- 
terests of  mankind  have  been  the  object  of  your  constant 
regard  ;  and  we  trust,  that  that  God,  who  loves  an  honest 
and  well-meaning  heart,  will  dispense  to  you  such  protec- 
tion, as  to  his  wisdom  may  seem  most  fit.  To  his  benevo- 
lent and  fatherly  protection  we  devoutly  recommend  you 
through  the  remainder  of  your  life ;  praying,  that  you 
may  be  long  preserved,  that  you  may  survive  the  hatred 
of  yoin-  ungrateful  country,  and  that  you  may  repay  her 
cruel  injuries  by  adding,  as  you  have  hitherto  done,  to  her 
treasure  of  science,  of  virtue,  and  of  piety. 


23 

"  This  tribute  of  our  esteem  and  sympathy  for  you, 
Sir,  we  entreat  you  to  receive  with  that  regard,  which  we 
know  the  purity  of  it  deserves ;  and,  though  not  recom- 
mended by  (he  rank  of  life  we  hold,  we  trust  that  you,  a 
philosopher  and  a  Christian,  will  think  it  not  undeserving 
of  a  place  among  the  very  respectable  testimonies  of  es- 
teem and  condolence,  which  both  at  home  and  abroad  your 
merits  and  your  sufferings  have  invited." 

^  ^  iiC-  :i5-  iJt  :3t  ^ 

•A*  "vr  w  "Tr  •75*  •«*  TT- 

Signed  hf  forty-tkree  Ministers  of  the  Three  Denominations. 

Dr.  Priestley  was  characterised  by  a  wonderful  activity 
and    energy  of  mind,    the   most  open  frankness   and  sim- 
plicity in  the  expression  of  his  thoughts,  and  an  undaunted 
earnestness   in  the  pursuit  of  truth.     These  properties  of 
his  understanding,  while  they  enabled   him   to  make   some 
important  addition   to  almost  every  department  of  human 
knowledge,  and  to  perceive  the  baselessness  of  some  of  the 
doctrines,  in  the  firm  belief  of  which  he  had  been  educated, 
perhaps  led  him  to  reject  too  hastily  other  opinions,  which 
woidd   have   been  retained   by  men  of  a  less  keen,  ardent, 
and  inquisitive  disposition.     It  is  a  weakness  of  the  human 
mind,  that,  when  once  released  from  the  boundaries,  within 
which  it  has   been  pent  up  by  prejudice  or  education,  like 
waters    bursting   through   a  high   embankment,   it  is  apt  to 
run   beyond    the  level,  at  which  it  would  nalurallj'  subside 
by   length  of  time   or   the   absence  of  all  restraint.     I  am 
disposed  to  think,  that  this   great  man    allowed    himself  a 
freedom    and  boldness    in   speculation,   which    caused   his 
inquiries  to  terminate  in  partial  errour,  and  which  might 
have    produced    serious   evils    in  a   mind  less    thoroughly 
imbued  than  his  with   virtuous    principles    and    devotional 
habits.     Those,  who  have  not  sufficient  vigour  of  intellect 
to  comprehend  what  is   truly  important  in    his  doctrines, 


29 

exhaust  their  strength  in  petulant  attacks  upon  (he  trivial 
erroiirs  of  sentiment  or  expression,  which  tliey  are  able  to 
select  out  of  his  hundred  publications. 

"  Mst5-0VT6C   Si,    hA^gZt 

"  TlttyyxaKrfTia.,  kop-jkk  ^;, 

*'  A/oc  TT^oc  ogvt^ei  9-s/sv." 

PiND.    Ol.    II.    154— 1.')9. 

"  He  only,  in  whose  ample  breast 
"Nature  hath  true  inherent  genius  ponr'd, 

"  The  praise  of  wisdom  may  contest ; 
"  Not  they,  who,  with  loquacious  learning  stor'd, 
"  Like  crows  and  chatt'ring  jays,  with  clam'rous  cries, 
"  Pursue  the  Bird  of  Jove,  that  sails  along  the  skies."* 

[  *  In  these  remarks  on  the  respect  to  the  Scriptures  paid  by  Unitari- 
ans, Mr.  Yates  confines  himself  to  the  defence  of  that  class  of  them, 
who  are  believers  in  the  simple  humanity  of  our  Lord.  Indeed  the 
charge  has  scarcely,  if  at  ail,  been  extended  to  those  who  embrace 
higher  views  of  his  nature  ;  certainly  not  by  any  one  in  any  degree  ac- 
quainted with  their  writings.  The  reproach  on  Humanitarians  also  has 
been  almost  wholly  founded  on  a  few  passages  in  the  writings  of  Dr. 
Priestley  and  Mr.  Belsham,  which  nearly  all  who  agree  with  them 
in  other  respects,  would  unite  in  censuring.  How  unjust  then  is  it  to 
ascribe  the  individual  opinions  of  these  gentlemen  to  all  who  think  with 
them  on  the  subject  of  the  unity  of  God.  The  reibrmer  Luther  hastily 
styled  the  Epistle  of  St.  James,  epistola  charfacea,  mere  waste  paper. 
But  what  should  we  think  of  the  candour  of  our  Roman  Catholick 
brethren,  if  they  should  found  on  this  sentiment  of  that  great  man, 
a  charse  asainst  all  Protestants  of  a  similar  contempt  of  that 
portion  of  Scripture  ? 

It  is  very  desirable  in  this,  as  in  every  inquiry,  that  we  should  sepa- 
rate the  true  question  in  debate  from  every  subject  not  necessarily 
connected  with  it.  The  controversy,  with  respect  to  the  nature  and 
degree  of  the  inspiration  of  the  sacred  records,  has  no  peculiar  bearing 
on  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  All  Unitarians  would  cheerfully  leave 
the  cause  to  be  decided  on  the  ground  which  Mr.  Yates' has  taken,  p. 
19.  They  would  esteem  themselves  but  too  happy,  if  the  determina- 
tion of  the  question,  whether  there  is  one  Supreme  Object  of  worship. 


30 

or  three  Supreme  Objects  of  worship,  should  be  left  to  the  clear  and 
simple  language  of  the  Bible,  explained  by  any  consistent  laws  oi'  in- 
terpretation.— The  question  of  inspiration  belongs  in  truth  to  the  Deis- 
tical  controversy.  Tliose,  who  maintain  that  the  sacred  writers,  in 
recording  the  facts  and  instructions  of  which  they  were  divinely  in- 
formed, were  left  to  the  use  of  their  own  language,  and  to  the  influence 
of  their  own  mental  peculiarities,  take  this  ground  solely  because  they 
believe,  that  the  sacred  authority  of  the  Scriptures  cannot  otherwise 
be  defended.  They  think,  that  the  modes  of  quotation,  the  varieties  of 
phraseology  in  narrating  the  same  fact,  the  circumstantial  discrepan- 
ces, the  rhetorical  and  even  grammatical  inaccuracies,  together  with 
the  striking  peculiarities  of  style,  which  every  one  discerns  in  the 
different  writers  of  the  New  Testament,  can  be  satisfactorily  explained 
on  no  other  theory.  They  believe  that  the  contrary  supposition 
encumbers  the  defence  of  Christianity  with  insuperable  difficulties, 
while  their  own  even  lends  new  strength  to  it.  They  affirm  that  the 
sacred  writers  no  where,  either  explicitly  or  impliedly,  lay  claim 
to  any  higher  inspiration,  than  consists  in  an  exemption  from  errour  in 
the  facts  and  doctrines  which  they  deliver  as  the  mind  of  Christ.  For 
this  a  plenary  verbal  explanation  seems  in  no  degree  required.  Indeed 
if  it  were  necessary  that  a  miracle  should  be  wrought  to  suggest  each 
word  to  the  7vriter,  it  is  equally  necessary  that  every  rfcrfe?- should  also 
be  inspired ;  or  otherwise  the  miracle  would  be  rendered  useless  by 
the  inherent  defects  of  all  human  language.  Besides,  if  it  were  necessary 
that  every  word  should  be  given  originally  by  a  miracle,  does  not  the 
same  necessity  exist,  that  it  should  be  preserved  by  a  miracle,  unal- 
tered by  errour  or  negligence,  in  subsequent  ages  ?  Might  we  not 
therefore  expect  that  the  pen  of  every  transcriber  would  be 
supernaturally  guided,  as  indeed  the  Jews  fondly,  yet  consistently, 
believed  of  their  sacred  writings,  till  the  modern  collation  of  Hebrew 
Manuscripts  undeceived  them  ?  It  is  by  these  and  similar  arguments, 
that  some  of  the  truest  and  best  Christians  have  justified  their  doubts 
of  the  common  opinion  of  the  plenary  verbal  inspiration  of  the  Scrip- 
tures. Wiiether  solid  or  not,  it  is  evident  that  their  arguments  ^ro- 
ceedfroin  their  reverence  to  the  Bible,  and  their  desire  that  the  evidence 
of  its  sacred  authority  may  be  relieved  of  every  objection.  They 
doubtless  may  be  wrong  in  their  opinions ;  but  it  would  be  better 
to  answer  theii"  arguments  tlian  to  impeach  their  motives.  At  all 
events,  their  errours  have  nolliing  to  do  with  the  question  of  the 
Trinity,  and  it  is  only  a  ver;-  ungenerous  argumentvm  ad  invidiam  to 
introduce  them  into  this  discussion. — Editor.] 


31 


CHAPTEH  III. 


ON      THE      PROPER      METHOD       OP       ASCERTAINING        THE       SENSE      OF 

SCRIPTURE. 

EvERV  person  of  sober  reflection  will  allow,  that,  besides 
maintaining  in  all  our  inquiries  after  religious  truth  a  meek, 
teachable,  and  pious  disposition,  we  ought  also  to  exercise 
diligence  and  discretion  in  the  use  of  proper  means  for 
ascertaining  the  sense  of  the  Scriptures.  I  propose  in  this 
chapter  briefly  to  explain  the  principles,  which,  I  conceive, 
will  be  adopted  by  all,  who,  instead  of  aiming  to  support  a 
favourite  system,  to  feed  the  cravings  of  a  restless  imagi- 
nation, or  to  serve  their  temporal  interests,  simply  ask, 
What  saith  the  Scripture  ? 

Whenever  we  wish  to  determine  with  accuracy  the  sense 
of  any  portion  of  the  New  Testament,  (for  to  the  New  I 
shall  chiefly  apply  my  remarks,)  three  particulars  claim 
our  attention;  1st,  the  correctness  of  the  Greek  text; 
2ndly,  the  mode  of  translating  it  into  English  ;  and  3dly, 
the  mode  of  interpreting  that  translation. 

I.  In  the  first  place,  it  is  obviously  necessary,  that  we 
should  know  what  Greek  words  were  originally  written  in 
the  passage  under  consideration. 

The  manuscripts  and  printed  editions  of  the  Greek  Tes- 
tament differ  from  one  anolher  in  numerous  passages,  and 
these  differences  are  sometimes  of  great  importance.  But 
it  is  plain,  that  the  passage  can  have  been  written  in  one 
way  only  the  Apostle,  from  whose  pen  it  proceeded.  It  is 
therefore  the  objeet  of  the  impartial  critick  to  ascertain  the 
genuine  reading  by  consulting  ancient  manuscripts,  versions, 
and  commentaries.  In  doing  this  he  is  guided  by  strict 
rules,  which  are  acknowledged  by  all  learned  men  of  what- 


32 

.] 

ever  religious  sentiuienls,  and  which  have  been   adopted      ! 
from  an  impartial  consideration  of  the  circumstances  of  the 
case,  and  not  to  support  the  principles  of  any  sect  or  partj.      i 
If  therefore  he  is  obliged,  in  conformity  to  these  rules,  to      '. 
reject  one  reading  and  to  adopt  another,  his  decision  does      1 
not  arise  from  any  desire   to    advance   the   progress  of  his 
own  private  opinions,  but  results  from  the  uniform  applica-      i 
tion  of  those  rules,  by  which  alone  the  writings  of  the  New     i 
Testament  can  be  restored  to  their  original   uncorruptness.      | 
It  is  of  importance  to  observe  this  circumstance,  because,      j 
when  Unitarians  reply  to  an  argument  by  saying,  that  the     4 
passage  in  the  original  has  been  corrupted,  ignorant  persons      ] 
always  suspect,  that  they  make  arbitrary  alterations   in  the      ^ 
Sacred  Text  merely  to  suit  their  system.     In  this  ground- 
less suspicion    they  are  sometimes  countenanced  by  those,      " 
who  ought  to  teach   them   better.     Dr.  Jamieson  of  Edin- 
burgh,  in  his  learned  History  of  the  Culdees,  (p,  93,)  an- 
swering  some  author,   (Bp.  Lloyd,)  who  had  obviated  the 
argument  arising  from  the  occurrence  of  a  certain  phrase  in 
another  author  by  saying,  that  that  phrase  was  perhaps  in- 
serted into  the  later  copies,  remarks,  "This  however  for- 
cibly reminds  one  of  the  Socinian    mode  of  reasoning.     It 
is  well  known,  that,  when  writers  of  this    class  are    much 
puzzled  with  any  passage  of  Scripture,  which  opposes  their 
system,  they  raise  the  cry  of  interpolation."      Concerning 
the  manner,  in  which  this  assertion  is  made,  I  restrain  my- 
self    But  its  complete  falsehood   I   must    notice,    because 
the  progress    of  Unitarianism,    as    its   adversaries    clearly 
foresee,  depends  in  a  great  measure  upon  the  credit  of  the 
more  learned  Unitarians  for  fidelity  in  criticising  and  trans- 
lating the  original  Scriptures. 

Some  learned  men  in  our  own  country,  and  many  more 
upon  the  continent,  have  exerted  themselves  with  great 
acuteness  and  a   most  laudable  assiduity  in  collecting,  pub- 


^3 

Ushing,  and  comparing  the  Various  Readings  of  the  Greek 
Testament.     Above  all,  the  Christian  world  is  indebled  to 
the   learned,  impartial,    and    indefatigable   Dr.  Griesbach, 
late  Professor  of  Theology  in  the  University  of  .Jena,  who 
devoted  almost  his  whole  life  and  talents   to  the  correction 
of  the  text,  and,  as  the  result  of  his  labours,  published  an 
edition  of  the  Greek  Testament,  restored  nearly  to  its  pri- 
mitive incorrupt  ion,  and  accompanied  by   a  view  of  the  va^ 
rious   readings  contained  in  other   printed  editions,  and  in 
the  ancient  manuscripts,  versions,  and  commentaries.     This 
edition  has  been  already  reprinted  many  times,  and  in  vari- 
ous parts  of  the   world,  and  is  at  present  received   every 
where  by  the  learned  as  the  standard  text  of  the  Christian 
Scriptures.       Dr.   Marsh,  a  Professor    of  Divinity  in  the 
University  of  Cambridge,  and    by    far    the    riiost    learned 
theologian  in  our  nation,  says,  that  "  Griesbach   has  admit- 
ted   critical    conjecture   in   no    instance  whatsoever,    and, 
where  he  has  expunged,  corrected,  or  added,  the  evidence, 
(which  he  has   accurately  produced,)  is  in  point  of  autho- 
rity three  and  four-fold  in  his  favour."   (Marsh's  Michaelis, 
ch.  XII.  sec.  3.  note  2.)    Since  Professor  Griesbach  was  a 
Trinitarian,  it  cannot  be  supposed,  that  he  was  influenced  in 
his  decisions  by  any  desire  to  favour  the  opposite  doctrines  ; 
and  yet  he  was  so  perfectly  impartial,  that  the  Unitarians 
pay  profound    deference  to  his  judgment,  and  see  no  rea- 
son to  charge  him  with  an  undue  attachment  to  those  read- 
ings of  the  text,  which  seem  favourable  to  the  Orthodox 
system.* 

*  For  an  excellent  account  of  the  life  and  labours  of  Griesbach,  see 
the  Monthly  Repository,  v.  III.  p.  1 — 9.  A  late  number  of  the  Month- 
ly Review,  (see  appendix  to  vol.  LXXIII,)  contains  the  tbilowing  ac^- 
count  of  the  critical  celebrity  of  Griesbach,  in  the  review  of  a  Ger- 
man work  on  Greek  literature. 

"  A  melancholy  tribute  of  gratitude  and  admiration,  which  every 
critical  student  of  the  Scriptures  will  re-echo,    is  paid  at  the  close  of 

6 


34 

After  giving  this  short  account  of  Griesbach's  edition,  I 
scarcely  need  saj,  that  I  uniformlj   follow   it,    and  could 
not  without  great  arrogance  question  the  propriety  of  r.uy 
alteration,  M'hich  this  most  learned,  judicious,  and  impvinMl 
crilick  has  sanctioned  with  his  decisive  authority.     BnS  I 
saj' more ;   I  maintain,  that    exevy  minister,   who   pretends 
to  a  crilical  acquaintance  with   the  Scriptures,   and  who  is 
not  either  timorously  insincere  or  highly  presumpiuous,  will 
make  use  of  ihis  edilion  in  preference  to  any  other  ;  because 
this  contains  the  books  of  the  New  Testament,  as  nearly  as 
can    now    with    certainty   be   ascertained,  in    the   state    in 
which  they  proceeded  from  the  Apostles  and  Evangelists, 
whereas  into  the  editions,  formerly  used,  inferpolations  and 
corruptions  are  occasionally  introduced.     Those  who    be- 
lieve, that  the  words,  as  well  as  the  sentiments  of  the  sacred 
writers,  were  suggested    to   them  by  immediate  inspiration, 
ought  on  that  account  only  to    hold    this  edition  in  greater 
reverence. 

Mr.  vVardlaw  justly  remarks,  that,  "  in  making  our  ap- 
peal to  the  Scriptures,  we  should  beware  on  all  occasions 
of  secretly  indulging  a  wish  to  discover  any  part  of  them, 
however  small,  to  be  spurious,"  (p.  171.)  and  he  utters 
the  most  solemn  warnings  against  "  wresting  the  Scrip- 
tures," or  "  applying  them  to  purposes,  which  they  were 
not  designed  to  serve,"  so  as  "  to  impute  to  the  Author  of 
Truth  sentiments  contrary  to  what  he  meant  to  express,' 
and  to  fix  "  the  seal  of  Heaven  on  falsehood  and  forgery.' 


J) 


the  Preface  to  tlio  meiliory  of  tlie  leam.ed  Griesbach,  who  lately  died 
at  Jena,  in  which  university  he  was  the  most  eminent  professor.  His 
profound  comparative  knowledge  of  manuscripts  and  editions,  and  the 
sin2;u!ar  sagacity  and  impartiality  of  his  verbal  criticism,  have  given 
to  his  text  of  the  Christian  canon  an  oracular  value.  The  ortlodox 
and  the  herctick  bow  alike  to  the  unprejudiced  indiflcrence  of  1  i-  dog- 
matism ;  and,  wliere  inspiraiion  appears  not  to  guide,  Griesbacii  i? 
now  allowed  to  detenpine.." 


as 

(p.  34.)  B'lt  it  should  be  observed,  that,  besides  wishing  a 
genuine  expression  io  be  spurious,  a  person,  interested  in  the 
support  of  a  system,  may  also  wish  a  spiirioiis  expression 
to  be  o-enuine,  and  that  it  is  not  more  wicked  and  profane  to 
misapply  a  i^enuinc  portion  of  the  word  of  God,  than  to  pro- 
duv-.e  as  an  nncorrnpted  passage  of  Scripture,  what  is  only 
accounted  such  in  the  estimation  of  the  uninformed. 

Concerning  the  variations  in  the  text  of  Griesbach,  whicli 
relate  to  the  Divinity  of  Christ,  Mr.  Wardiaw  addresses  his 
hearers  in  the  following  terms  ;  p.  14G,  147. 

"  Of  all  the  texts,  then,  in  the  New  Testament,  to  which  I 
have  directed  your  attention  on  this  interesting  topick,  how 
many  are  there,  do  you  suppose,  whicii  undergo  any  altera- 
tion in  the  text  of  Griesbach,  the  most  recent,  and,  on  all 
hands,  acknowledged  the  most  perfect  ? — You  will  be  sur- 
prised, perhaps, — especially  any  of  you  who  may  have  been 
in  the  way  of  hearing  Griesbach  so  often  and  so  triumphantly 
appealed  to,  as  he  usually  is  by  our  opponents, — when  I 
assure  you  that  there  is  not  one  : — that  not  a  single  text  of 
all  that  have  been  quoted  is  in  the  slightest  degree  touched 
by  this  high  and  vaunted  authority!" 

"  The  fact  as  to  this  matter  stands  as  follows. — There 
are  three  texts  connected  with  the  present  subject  which 
this  eminent  critick  sets  aside:  namely,  1  John  v.  7.  '  For 
there  are  three  that  bear  record  in  heaven,  the  Father,  the 
Word,  and  the  Holy  Ghost;  and  these  three  are  one: — 
Acts  XX.  28.  Feed  the  church  of  God,  which  he  halh  pur- 
chased with  his  own  blood:' — and,  1  Tim.  iii.  16.  '  Great  is 
the  mystery  of  godliness,  God  wes  manifest  in  the  flesh.' — 
T!ie  first  of  these  texts  is  rejected  as  entirely  an  interpola- 
tion. In  the  second,  the  reading  '  the  church  o(  the  Lord^ 
is  preferred,  on  a  preponderance  of  authorities,  to  the  read- 
ing of  the  received  text,  '  the  church  of  God.'  In  the  third, 
'God  was  manifest  in  the  fiesh'  gives  place  to  ^Me  who  was 


36 

nianilested  in  the  flesh,  was  justified  by  the  Spirit,  Sec'  Now 
to  no  one  of  these  three  passages  have  I  referred,  in  proof  of 
the  doctrine  which  it  has  been  my  object  to  establish." 

In  this  passage  Mr.  Wardlaw  acknowledges,  that  the  text 
of  Griesbach  is  '•  the  most  perfect,"  accompanying  his  con- 
fession however  with  an  angry  sneer,  which  shows  that  he 
ill  endures  to  see  the  implicit  deference  paid  to  the  deci  ions 
of  Giiesbach  by  competent  judges  of  all  parlies,  and  will 
never  forgive  him  for  having,  in  obstinate  conformity  to  his 
stupid  Rules,  thrown  down  three  main  pillars  of  the  Trini- 
tarian system. 

B.if,  besides  the  spirit  of  this  passage,  I  have  some  fault 
to  find  with  its  accuracy. 

In  pages  41,  85,  86,  136,  that  is,  five  several  times,  Mr. 
Wardlaw  has  quoted  to  prove  the  Divinity  of  Christ,  Rev. 
i.  8.  "  I  am  Alpha  and  Omega,  the  beginning  and  the  end- 
ing, saith  (he  Lord,  which  is,  and  which  was,  and  which  is 
to  come,  the  Almighty."  But  the  verse,  as  corrected  by 
Giiesbach,  reads  thus ;  "  I  am  Alpha  and  Omega,  saith  the 
Lord  God,  who  is,  and  who  was,  and  who  is  to  come,  the 
Almighty."  The  emendation  is  of  considerable  importance, 
because  it  determines  completely  the  reference  of  the  pas- 
sage to  God,  and  not  to  Jesus  Christ.  Yet  Mr.  Wardlaw 
affirms,  tiiat  "  not  a  single  text  of  all  that  have  been 
quoted  is  in  the  slightest  degree  touched  by  this  high  and 
vaunted  authority  !" 

In  page  40,  he  has  quoted  among  bis  specimens  of  the 
"  current  language  of  the  New  Testament,"  J  Tim.  iii.  16. 
"  God  was  manifested  in  the  flesh."  In  page  33,  the  same  ex- 
pression is  brought  forward,  and  marked  as  a  quotation.  In 
page  184,  the  phrase  is  again  produced,  and,  though  not 
marked  with  inverted  conimas,  M'ould  impress  his  hearers  at 
least,  if  not  his  readers,  with  the  force  of  a  familiar  passage 
of  Scripture.  Yet  Mr.  Wardlaw  affirms  of  this  passage  to- 
ojether  with  the  other  iwo  set  aside  by  Griesbach,  "  Now  to 


n 

no  one  of  these  three  passages  have  I  referred  in  proof  of  the 
doctrine,  which  it  has  been  my  object  to  establish." 

If  our  friend  had  delected  such  inaccuracies  in  the  work 
of  any  Unitarian,  they  would  have  afforded  an  occasion  for 
a  loud  and  long  Carmen  Triumphale,  followed  by  grave  ad- 
monitions against  dishouesti/  and  "  impressing  the  seal  of 
Heaven  on  falsehood  and  foigerj."  I  believe,  however, 
that  these  mistakes  have  arisen  from  mere  carelessness, 
though  carelessness  is  not  easily  excusable  in  one,  who  is 
writing  on  such  important  subjects  and  with  such  imposing 
solemnity. 

II.  After  it  has  been  determined,  how  a  passage  was  origi- 
nally written  by  its  inspired  author,  the  next  inquiry  relates 
to  ihe  proper  mode  of  translating  it  into  English. 

The  translation  of  the  Bible,  now  in  use,  is  sufficiently 
accurate  for  common  purposes;  its  impressive  and  venera- 
ble diction  will  probably  never  be  excelled  ;  and,  consider- 
ing that  it  was  made  more  than  two  hundred  years  from  the 
present  time,  when  the  criticism  of  the  Scriptures  was  in  its 
infancy,  it  is  highly  creditable  both  to  the  talents  and  to  the 
candour  of  its  authors.  Nevertheless  it  ought  to  be  remem- 
bered, that  the  forty-seven  gentlemen,  employed  to  make  it 
by  King  James,  were  not  miraculously  inspired.  They 
I  were  fallible  men,  and  it  is  acknowledged  by  persons  of  all 
sects,  that  in  many  instances  they  have  failed.  Mr.  Ward- 
law  occasionally  objects  to  their  translation  in  the  most  de- 
cided terms,  (see  particularly,  p.  101.  71.  85.  338.  186.  38. 
116.)*  and  I  think  it  probable  that,  in  all  that  I  shall  hereafter 
advance  to  disprove  the  Tiinitarian  system,  I  shall  not  depart 
from  the  Authorised  version  in  a  greater  number  of  instances 
than  my  opponent. 

Althodgh  many  persons  in  the  common  walks  of  life  may 
be  obliged  to  confine  their  attention  to  this  translation,  yet  it 

f*  Also  298.  351.  425.  English  ed.] 


58 

is>  obviously  fhe  diitj  of  the  ministers  of  religion  to  go  to  the 
fountain-head,  not  to  trust  to  this  or  any  other  imperfect  Ver- 
sion, but  to  bestow  their  labour  upon  the  Greek  Original,  and 
with  this  view  to  make  themselves  acquainted  both  with  the 
languages  of  the  Classical  Writers  of  Greece  and  Rome,  and 
with  the  idioms  of  the  Oriental  tongues. 

He,  who  is  inquiring  into  the  sense  of  a  particular  passage, 
will  do  well  to  examine  how  it  has  been  rendered  by  former 
translators.  He  ought  however  to  be  careful,  that  he  does 
not  neglect  to  exercise  his  own  judgment,  out  of  servile  de- 
ference to  the  opinions  of  others.  Slill  more  should  he  be 
upon  his  guard  against  translating  a  passage  merely  in  ac- 
coramodation  to  his  preconceived  ideas.  Let  him  be  guid- 
ed by  the  rules  of  grammar,  and  the  meanings  which  are 
given  to  words  in  the  best  lexicons.  Thus  he  may  produce 
in  English  an  exact  representation  of  what  the  inspired  au- 
thor has  Vi^ritten  in  Greek.  But  if,  disdaining  the  dull  em- 
ployment of  searching  through  dictionaries  and  applying  the 
rules  of  grammar,  he  satisfies  himself  with  any  translation, 
that  pleases  his  fancy  or  supports  his  system,  he  forces  the 
Scriptures  to  speak  the  language  of  his  creed,  instead  of 
making  his  creed  conformable  to  the  real  assertions  of  the 
Scriptures. 

It  however  sometimes  happens,  that  the  original  admits  of 
being  translated  in  two  different  ways.  In  this  case,  it  be- 
comes the  student  to  bear  both  of  the  translations  in  his 
mind,  and  t6  desist  from  making  a  choice  between  them,  un- 
til he  has  learned  the  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures  from  other 
unambiguous  passages.  It  is  then  allowable  to  adopt,  as  ex-  J 
pressive  of  the  true  sense  of  the  original,  that  translation, 
which  is  agreeable  to  the  sentiments  clearlv  laid  down  in 
other  parts  of  Scripture.  But  it  is  evident,  that  a  passage 
in  these  circumstances  cannot  with  propriety  be  adduced  as 
a  proof  of  any  doctrine. 


3» 

UI.  Let  us  now  suppose,  that  the  student  of  the  Scrip^-. 
tuics  has  franslated  accurately  info  Enji,lish  a  genuine  and 
uncoiTupted  passage  of  the  New  Testament.     The  next  in- 
quiry relates   to   the  mode  of  interpreting  that  translation. 
Here  it  is  that  our  judgment  is  in  the  greatest  danger  of  be- 
ing warped  by  prejudice,  because  here  we  cannot  be  guided 
by  such  strict  rules  of  criticism  as  in  the  two  former  branches 
of  inquiry.   When  it  is  our  object  to  explain  an  English  trans- 
lation, we  ought  to  be  especially  on  our  guard  against  using 
the  system,  which  we  have  adopted,  as  a  key  to  discover 
the  sense  of  the  passage.   For  daily  observation  shows,  that 
a   man,   who  is  wedded  to  a  certain  set  of  opinions,  accus- 
to;ns  himself  to  find   those  opinions,   whatever  they  are,  ia 
every  page  of  the  Bible  ;  according  to  which  loose  and  fan- 
ciful plan  of  interpretation  the  Scriptures  may  be   made  to 
express  an  infinite  variety  of  meanings,  or,  what  is  the  same 
thing,  to  have  no  meaning  at  all.     The  principles  of  inter- 
pretation which  I  shall  now  briefly   mention,  are  such  as  no 
reflecting  person  will  dispute. 

In  considering  the  sense  of  any  passage  we  should  first 
inquire,  whether  the  words  may  not  be  taken  in  their  literal 
and  primary  acceptation.  A  literal  explanation  of  a  pas- 
sage is  always  to  be  preferred,  until  some  good  reason  is  as- 
signed for  departing  from  it.  Nevertheless  it  is  evident  to 
all,  and  it  is  acknowledged  by  persons  of  every  sect,  that 
in  numberless  instances  the  words  of  Scripture  are  to  be 
understood  figuratively.  Where  therefore  we  meet  with  a 
passage,  which,  if  literally  explained,  would  be  a  manifest 
violation  of  common  sense,  or  directly  contradict  what  is 
asserted  in  other  parts  of  the  Bible,  we  must  conclude 
that  the  words  are  not  to  be  taken  in  their  primary  signifi- 
cation. To  determine  the  true  sense,  we  must  examine 
other  passages,  where  the  same  forms  of  expression  occur, 
and  where  persons  of  all  parties  agree  to  interpret  them  in 


40 

the  same  way.  Bj  employing  the  plainer  and  undisputed 
passages  as  guides  to  the  interpretation  of  those  which  are 
obscure,  we  mav  discover  the  true  sense  of  all. 

Instead  of  having  recourse  to  these  severe  and  unaccom- 
modating rules,  it  is  very  common  with  Trinitarians  to 
adopt  without  further  inquiry  any  explanations,  which  ex- 
cite their  feelings  or  please  their  fancy.  To  this  conve- 
nient and  captivating,  but  licentious  and  unprincipled  me- 
thod of  interpretation  Mr.  Wardlaw  has  in  many  inslancei 
given  the  sanction  of  his  example,  not  considering,  that  the 
meaning  which  appears  to  him  grand,  interesting,  and  even 
obvious,  may  thus  strike  his  mind  only  because  it  falls  in 
with  his  preconceived  opinions.  To  him  and  to  all  who 
argue  after  such  a  manner,  I  would  put  this  serious  ques- 
tion ;  "  Do  you  evince  any  of  that  reverence  for  the  Scrip- 
tures and  that  holy  thirst  after  divine  truth,  with  the  want 
of  which  you  so  liberally  charge  Unitarians,  if,  in  compar- 
ing different  interpretations  of  Scripture,  you  do  not  make 
it  your  object  merely  to  detect  those  which  are  false,  but 
discard  all  which  you  think  frigid,  poor,  and  tame.  I  can- 
not but  consider  such  a  conduct  as  indicative  of  an  under- 
standing, which  has  little  relish  for  clear  simple  truths,  and 
is  therefore  always  longing  for  awful  mysteries,  and  seeking 
for  something  to  rouse  the  feelings  and  amuse  the  imagina- 
tion in  proportion  as  it  offends  the  judgment.  I  am  happy 
to  think  that  Unitarians  study  the  Scriptures  with  different 
views.  Instead  of  endeavouring  to  find  in  every  page  of 
the  Bible  something  grand  and  astonishing,  we  only  search 
for  what  is  true;  we  inquire  what  is  the  strict  and  gram- 
matical sense  of  the  passage  before  us ;  we  thus  endeavour 
to  fuid  out  what  has  actually  been  taught  to  mankind  by 
the  inspired  prophets  and  apostles  ;  and  then,  instead  of 
complaining  that  the  doctrines  of  the  New  Testament  are 
too  mean  to  be  the  subjects  of  a  divine  revelation,  and  at- 


41  . 

templing  fo  arlorn  and  aggrandize    <he  simplicity  that  is  ia 
Christ,  we  take  the  Gospel  as  we  find  it,  and  are  thankful." 
On  the  same  ground  I  object   to  the   seducing  warmth  of 
persuasion,    in  which  Mr.  Wardlaw  uniformly  clothes  his 
arguments  concerning  the   sense  of  the  Scriptures.     "Be- 
lieving," says  he,   "  the  doctrine"  of  the  Divinity  of  Christ 
*'  to  comprehend  within  itself  all  the  hopes  of  a  guilty  and 
perishing  world,   while  I  would  contend   meekly,  I  must  be 
pardoned,  if  at  the  same  time   I  contend    earnestly.     It  is 
not  a  subject  for  that  speculative,  cold-hearted  indifference, 
which  is  falsely  esteemed  by  some  essential  to  ficedom  from 
prejudice."   (p.  154.)      No  candid   reader  will    deny,  that 
Mr.  Wardlaw's  ardent  concern  for  the  general  reception  of 
a  doctrine,   which    he    thinks    requisite  to  tlie  salvation   of 
mankind,   is    in    itself  commendable  ;  but  he  forgets,  that, 
if  he  does  not   in  the  first  place  inform  himself  by  calm, 
diligent,    and    accurate    investigation.   What  is   Truth,  his 
earnestness  of  contention  may  only  be  exerted  in  favour  of 
established  errours,  and  thus  counteiact  his  own  benevolent 
intentions.      When  I  consider   how  apt  we  are,  in    the  dis- 
cussion of  controverted  doctrines,  to  be  betrayed  into  un- 
christian animo=;ity,  to  over:  at 3  our  own  arguments  and  un- 
dervalue those  of  our    opponents,  and    to   flatter  ourselves 
that  we  are  cherishing  a  devout  regard  to  the  glory  of  God 
and  the  salvation  of  men,  when  in  fact  we  are  only  offering 
incense  to  our  own  vanity,  by   giving  full  play  to  that  spi- 
ritual pride  and  sectarian  reserve,  which  often  mingle  even 
with  our  best  affections,  I    must  profess  myself  a  decided  • 
advocate    for   that    temper   of  cool,  patient,  and  impartial 
inquiry,  which  Mr.  Wardlaw  condemns  under  the  name  of 
"  cold-hearted  indifference."     It  shall  be  my  endeavour  ac- 
cordingly in  the  following  work  to  employ  all  the  diligence 
and  accuracy,  of  which  I  am  capable,  in    determining  the 
true  sense  of  every  disputed  passage,  and  then  to  deliver 

7 


42  i 

1 

I 

a  dry  critical  opinion,  stating  the  ^.rounds  of  that  opinion  ] 
so  far  as  they  can  be  made  intelligible  to  En'^lish  readers.  ' 
I  wish  also,  that,  whenever  any  difficulty  comes  in  my  way, 
I  may  have  the  candour  to  acknowledge  it,  anO  tha(,  when-  ; 
ever  I  am  in  doubt  or  see  reason  to  retract  an  opinion  for-  ^ 
merly  stated,  I  may  have  the  honesty  to  confess  it. 

But,  although  this  kind  of  indifiesence  is  absolutely  requi- 
site in  the  ini'estiiralion  of  religious  truth,  yel,  when  the      ' 

truth  is  once  discovered,  when  the   controveisy  is  termina-      ; 

i 
ted,  then  let  fervent   enthusiasm  apply  the  theory  to  prac-      i 

lice;  then  let  generous  unabated  zeal  employ  the  weapons  ^ 
of  divine  truth  to  subdue  the  powers  of  sin  and  darkness  ;  | 
then  let  the  eloquent  tongue  express  all  the  tender  and  kind  | 
amotions  of  the  bleeding  heart;  then  adopt  the  penetrating  ] 
all-powierful  ihetorick  of  Paul,  "  I  have  told  you  before, 
and  now  tell  you  even  weeping." 

I  have  thus  endeavoured  to  illustrate  the  three  objects  of      ; 
inquiry,  which  will  engage  the  attention  of  every  one,  who 
sincerely  desires  lo    learn   from    the    New   Testament   the 
invaluable  doctrines    of  the    Christian    Revelation.     I    am 
aware  of  an  objection,  which  will    occur    to  every  reader, 
vis.  that  the  two    former   topicks,  relating  to  the  accuracy 
of  the  Greek  text  and  the  mode  of  translating  it  into  Eng- 
lish, are  beyond  the   reach  of  the    majority  of  Christians. 
This  is  undoubtedly   the  case.     When   a  correct  English 
translation  is  supplied,  all  are  able  to  judge  of  its  meaning ; 
but  to  furnish  (he  translation  requires   not  only  an  intimate 
acquaintance  with  the  ancient  languages,  but  a  considerable 
knowledge  of  the  principles  of  criticism.     They,  who  have 
not  these  acquisitions,  must  necessarily  trust  for  information 
to  the  di!ia;ence  and  impartiality  of  those,  who  have  labour- 
ed   to  obtain  them.     To  comtnunicate    information  of  this 
kind,  T  consider  as  one  of  the  most  important  duties,  which 
the  Minister  of  Religion  owes  to  his  flock.     Being  unable 


4-3 

to  examine  tlie  original  Scriptures  Ibemselves,  ihey  confi- 
dently look  v])  to  him,  as  one  whose  edncation  and  leisure 
should  qualify  him  for  the  oHTice,  to  tell  them  where  the 
common  version  of  the  Scriptures  is  defective.  Every 
minister,  who  values  religious  truth  himself,  who  is  desirous 
of  imparting  it  to  others,  and  who  is  sensible  of  the  awful 
importance  of  the  duties  imposed  upon  him,  will  not  neglect 
either  to  furnish  himself  w^ilh  the  means  of  judging  upon 
these  subjects,  or  to  communicate  to  his  hearers  the  know- 
ledge, which  he  has  obtained.  In  particular,  no  minisler 
of  worth  and  veracity  will  produce  as  a  proof  of  a  popular 
doctrine  a  passage,  which  he  knows  to  be  incorrectly  repre- 
sented in  the  common  transtalion  of  the  Scriptures.  If  a 
publick  teacher  of  religion,  without  giving  any  intimation 
ti'iat  the  genuineness  of  the  passage  is  disapproved  or  dis- 
puted, brings  forward  such  a  verse,  for  example,  as  that 
falsely  attributed  to  St.  John,  "There  are  three,  that  bear 
record  in  heaven,  the  Father,  the  Word,  and  the  Holy 
Ghost ;  and  these  three  are  o.ie  ;"  or  such  an  expression 
as  that  falsely  attributed  to  Paul,  "  God  was  manifest  in 
the  flesh  ;"  he  not  only  evinces  little  regard  to  the  Sacred 
Scriptures,  by  preferring  the  mislakes  of  careless  transcri- 
bers and  the  corruptions  of  nefarious  monks  to  the  genuine 
■words  of  the  inspired  Apostles,  but  he  is  guilty  of  a  shame- 
ful imposture  in  withholding  that  knowledge,  which  he  is 
lK)und  in  honesty  to  communicate.  With  respect  therefore 
to  these  preliminary  topicks  of  inquiry,  it  becomes  the 
ministers  of  religion  to  be  industrious  in  informing  them- 
selves, and  open  and  candid  in  instructing  their  congrega- 
tions. Those,  who  do  not  understand  the  art  of  criticism 
and  the  original  languages  of  Scripture,  must  rely  upon  their 
diligence  and  integrity.  But,  at  the  same  lime,  they  should 
remember,  that,  when  a  correct  translation  of  a  genuine  text 
is  placed  before  them,  they  are  probably  as  well  able  to  in 
lerpret  it  as  their  ministers. 


44 


CHAPTER   IV. 


Oir   THE    PROPRIBTT    OF    BELIEVING    IN   MYSTERIES. 

Before  any  religion  can  be  received  as  divine,  it  must 
be  proved,  or  at  least  supposed,   to   contain  nothing,  which 
is  previously   known   to   be    false,  absurd,  and    impossible. 
We  believe  in   Revelation,   because   the   evidences,  which 
show  it  to  be  from  God,  far  outweigh  the  objections,  which 
may  be   advanced  to  evince  its  earthly  origin.     But,  sup- 
posing its    doctrines    to   be   irrational,    this   single   circum- 
stance  would  annul    the   whole   body    of   evidence    in   its 
favour,  and  prove  that  it   is  not  Revelation.     Accordingly 
those    authors,    who   have    stated    the    evidences    of    the 
Christian  faith,  have  in  general  laid  it  down   as  an  axiom, 
that   even    miracles    cannot    establish  a  doctrine,  which    is 
in  itself  absurd,  which  is  contrary  to   known   facts,  to  the 
fundamental   articles  of  Natural  Religion,  or  to  other  doc- 
trines of  the  same  pretended  revelation.*     If  therefore   by 
mysteries  be  intended  such  assertions  as    these,  we  could 
not,  and  ought  not,  to  believe   them,    even  though    they 
were  plainly  stated   in    the  Bible.     For    the    testimony   of 
the  Scriptures  would   not   prove   them  to  be  true  ;    on  the 
contrary,  they   would    prove    the   Scriptures   to  be    false. 
To  what   is    here   alleged,    Mr.  Wardlaw  gives  his  assent. 
"  It  is  true,"  says   he,   "  that   the   contents  of  this   book 

*  See,  for  example,  Clarke's  Sermons  at  Boyle's  Lerture,  Part  11.  \ 
14.  Bentley's  Sermons  at  Boyle's  Lecture,  Sermon  I.  p.  19, 20.  Le- 
land's  Answer  to  Tindal,  Part  II.  ch.  1.  Tillotson's  Sermons,  No.  177, 
V.  III.  p.  513.  535,  folio.  Campbell  on  Miracles,  p.  60—62.  Dod- 
dridge's Lectures,  p.  231—236.  Butler's  Analogy,  Part  II.  ch.  3  — 
Gerard's  Dissertations,  p.  102.  Chandler  on  Miracles,  ch.  III.  {  3.  p. 
92—95.  Sykes  on  Miracles,  p.  11. 28.    Watts' Logick,  Part  U.  ch.  5.  { 6. 


45  /     -• 

ought  to  be  examined,  as  forming  what  has  been  called  the 
internal  evidence  of  its  divine  auihoritj.  If  it  could  be 
sho'.vn  to  contain  what  was  clearly  contradictory,  the  dis- 
covery would  be  a  proof,  sufficiently  convincing,  of  its  not 
being  from  God."  (p.  24.)  Let  it  be  remembered,  then, 
that  even  the  rlearest  declarations  of  the  Scriptures  would 
not  authorize  us  to  believe  in  Mysteries,  if  mysteries  be 
propositions,  which  directly  contradict  first  principles, 
known  facts,  or  indisputable  truths. 

But,  besides  being  applied  to  doctrines,  which  are  un- 
derstood and  seen  to  be  absurd,  the  term  Mystery  is  also 
used  to  denote  those,  which  cannot  be  understood,  and 
which  therefore,  without  the  testimony  of  Revelation,  can- 
not possibly  be  proved  to  be  either  false  or  reasonable. 
In  this  sense  the  word  appears  to  be  employed  by  Mr. 
Wardjaw.  He  defines  a  Mystery  to  be  "  something,  that 
is  either  difficult  to  be  conceived,  or  entirely  incompre- 
hensible.** (p.  19.)  I  propose  the  following  definition  as 
more  exact,  and  also  better  accommodated  to  the  general 
tenour  of  Mr.Watdlaw's  reasoning  and  language  :  A  Mys- 
tery is  a  proposition,  to  the  terms  of  which  no  distinct 
ideas   are  annexed. 

fn  all  the  regions  of  nature  there  are  departments  of 
knowledge,  clear  and  open  to  the  Divine  Mind,  and  probably 
to  orders  of  intelligent  beings  intermediate  between  him 
and  us,  but  into  which  we  have  at  the  utmost  only  a  glimpse, 
which  are  to  us  either  invisible  or  but  dimly  seen.  Among 
our  own  species  also  many  individuals  enjoy  the  most 
distinct  and  full  apprehension  of  subjects,  with  which  the 
rest  of  mankind  are  very  imperfectly  acquainted.  On  all 
these  subjects  truths  may  be  enunciated,  so  far  as  human 
language  is  adapted  to  convey  them,  which  to  inferiour 
minds  will  appear  difficult  to  be  conceived  or  entirely 
incomprehensible.     Nothing  therefore  can  be  more  unrea- 


46 

sonable,  than  absolutely  to  deny  H.  proposition,  because  we 
attach  no  distinct  conceptions  to  the  terms,  in  which  it  is 
expressed. 

Our  present  inquiry  is,  On  what  grounds  ought  we  to 
yield  our  assent  to  such  propositions  ? 

To  me  it  appears  evident,  that  our  belief  must  arise 
solely  from  implicit  reliance  upon  the  Aulhorily  which 
declares  them.  A  man,  for  example,  may  ;  nnounce  some- 
thing to  me  in  an  unknown  tongue  ;  and,  being  assured  of 
his  general  veracity,  I  may  believe  that  he  speaks  the 
truth,  and  give  my  assent.  Or  a  person  may  enunciate  a 
proposition,  having  a  relation  to  the  doctrine  of  Porisms, 
the  Philosophy  of  Kant,  or  some  other  topick  foreign  from 
my  studies  ;  and  knowing  him  to  be  well-informed  upon  the 
subject,  I  may  be  convinced  that  his  assertion  is  true, 
without  connecting  any  ideas  with  the  words  employed. 
And,  in  like  manner,  a  Prophet,  who  proves  his  divine 
commission  by  miracles,  may  announce  a  doctrine  in  terms, 
to  which  I  annex  no  dist'nct  conceptions  ;  jet  I  may 
believe  that  the  prophet  does,  that  angels  and  superiour 
spirits  may,  that  I  myself  may  in  a  more  advanced  stage  of 
my  existence  ;  in  deference  therefore  to  his  Divine  author- 
ity, I  would  yield  my  humble  and  entire  assent. 

But  concerning  propositions  thus  circumstanced,  I  would 
submit  the  following  remarks  to  the  consideration  of  the 
candid  reader. 

1.  In  the  first  place,  it  appears  scarcely  possible,  that  a 
blind  assent  to   an  unintelligible    proposition  can  be  of  any 
use  in  the  regulation  of  the  conduct,  the  amendment  of  the  i 
heart,  or   the   alleviation  of   distress.     W  halever  force    is  j 
attributed  to  Mr.  Wardlaw's  observations  on   the  unavoid' 
able   difficulty   of  conceiving    the    manner  of    tj;e  Divine  1  || 
existence,    and  the   conse(;nc:it   propriety  of  believing  any 
mysteries  upon   this  subject  declared  in  Scripture,  it  must 


47 

be  allowed,  lliat  there  is  great  force  in  the  following  remarks 
of  one  of  the  best  divines,  whose  works  enrich  the  English 
Library.  "If,"  observes  Dr.  James  Foster,  "you  say 
that  you  cannot  account  for  the  manner  of  God's  creating 
the  world,  or  for  the  manner  in  which  he  exists  every 
where,  for  the  general  resurrection,  and  the  like,  I  answer, 
It  is  no  part  of  yon  r  religion  to  account  for  it.  Where 
THE  MYSTERY  BEGINS,  RELIGION  ENDS. — Mysterics  yield 
neither  pleasure,  nor  profit.  For,  as  with  respect  to  the 
works  of  nature,  all  onr  pleasure  arises  from  the  per- 
ception of  beauty,  harmony,  and  usefulness  ;  and,  how- 
ever we  may  imagine  innumerable  secret  beauties,  which 
we  have  not  discovered,  yet,  till  they  are  Jinown,  they 
afford  no  real  satisfaction,  nor  can  we  reap  any  advantage 
from  them  ;  'tis  just  the  same  with  respect  to  mysteries  in 
religion  ;  we  can  neither  be  delighted  nor  profited  by  them, 
because  we  don't  understand  them. — The  utmost  that  can 
be  said  is,  that  we  are  confounded  and  pussled.  And  is 
there  any  pleasure  in  that,  or  any  advantage  merely  in  being 
in  the  dark,  and  having  no  ideas  .^" 

2.  A  second  observation,  which  I  would  make  upon  this 
subject  is,  that,  if  an  incomprehensible  proposition  be  incul- 
cated in  Scripture  as  an  article  of  implicit  faith,  it  must  be 
delivered  in  the  very  terms  of  the  proposition.  We  can- 
not prove  such  a  proposition  by  inferences  ;  for  all  reason- 
ing is  out  of  the  question.  AVe  cannot  show  its  accord- 
ance with  the  ideas  suggested  by  Scripture  phrases  ;  for, 
on  such  a  subject,  we  have  no  ideas  at  all  ;  at  least,  our 
conceptions  being  indistinct,  every  step  we  take  is  an 
insecure,  a  random,  a  desperate  movement. 

Mr.  Wardlaw  (p.  22,  23.)  argues  admirably  upon  the 
difference  between  things  above  reason  and  things  contrary 
to  reason,  observing,  that,  if  a  doctrine  be  abo-e  reason, 
*  on   this  very   account  it  seems  impossible    to  prove  it 


48 

aontrary  to  reason.'*  "  Unless/'  says  he,  "  we  hare  some 
notion  of  the  thing  itself,  on  what  principle  can  we  possibly 
make  out  the  contrariefy  ?"  Undoubtedly,  if  any  asseriioa 
be  utterly  unintelligible  to  us,  from  the  very  nature  of  the 
case  we  cannot  prove  \\s  falsehood.  But  it  is  equally  im- 
possible for  us  bi/  any  argument  to  prove  its  truth.  We 
can  only  repeat  the  assertion  in  the  very  terms,  in  which 
we  hear  it  stated,  and  say,  We  believe  that  assertion  to  be 
true. 

I  may  affirm,  for  example,  in  the  hearing  of  a  man  ignorant 
of  Mathematicks,  that  "  The  Ellipse  is  one  of  the  Conick 
Sections."  To  these  words  he  annexes  no  distinct 
conceptions.  The  proposition  is  to  him  a  mystery.  He 
cannot  therefore  prove  it  to  be  false  ;  but  neither  can  he 
prove  it  to  be  trite.  If  he  gives  his  assent,  it  is  purely 
through  confidence  in  my  veracity  and  superiour  informa- 
tion. 

In  like  manner,  we  cannot  by  any  deductions  from 
Scripture  phrases  prove  the  truth  of  a  proposition,  which 
conveys  to  us  no  distinct  ideas.  If  such  a  proposition  be 
contained  in  the  Bible,  we  may  repeat  its  exact  words,  and 
say,  that  we  believe  it  to  be  true,  because  we  believe 
every  part  of  the  Bible  to  be  true.  But  we  can  say  or  do 
nothing  more.  In  no  other  way  can  the  testimony  of 
the  Scriptures  be  of  any  avail  to  prove  the  truth  of  the 
proposition. "* 

[*  These  observations  are  very  important,  and  might  perhaps  be  pur- 
sued somewhat  further.  It  might  be  shown  not  only  that  a  propo- 
sition, unintelligible  in  any  of  its  terms,  cannot  be  safely  collected 
by  way  of  inference  from  Scripture  phrases  ;  but  that  it  could  be  con- 
verted to  no  practical  purpose,  even  if  it  were  ever  so  formally  laid 
down.  It  nuistbe  incapable  of  any  application  and  barren  of  any  con- 
sequences. VVr  could  not  connect  such  a  proposition  with  any  other. 
We  could  not  draw  any  inferences  from  it.     Wc  could  not  convert  it 


49 

3.  In  the  third  place,  we  may  ask  respecling  proposi- 
tions, to  the  terms  of  which  we  annex  no  clear  concepiions, 
Is  it  proper  to  give  to  such  proj)ositions  the  name  of 
Revelation  ? 

to  any  purpose'?  of  doctrine  or  practice.  For  by  the  supposition  there 
are  one  or  more  terms  of  the  proposition,  which  convey  no  inielligible 
idea  to  the  luind  ;  which  relate  to  what  reason  in  none  of  its  operations 
can  at  all  conceive  of ;  in  regard  to  which  therefore  i\  can  lend  us 
Roaid.  The  duty  of  reason  is  then  nothing  more  tlian  profound,  Innn- 
ble,  absolute  silence.  So  long  as  any  term  oi"  the  proposition  is  unin- 
telligible, we  can  never  be  sure  that  it  may  not  contain  some  idea, 
incompatible  with  any  application  of  it,  which  reason  can  make.  As 
to  ail  practical  purposes,  therefore,  it  must  be  to  us  as  though  it  did 
not  exist;  except  when  we  quote  it  in  ciucilj/  the  same  jorm  and  in 
eiacily  the  same  connexion  in  v.'hich  it  originally  stood. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Ti-inity  is  professedly  wholly  above  human  reason. 
She  could  never  have  discovered  it  to  us  and  she  can  never  now  in  any 
degree  explain  it  to  us.  What  we  know  of  it  we  know  only  from  the 
Scriptures,  and  they  do  not  afford  us  any  assistance  in  understanding  in 
what  sense  it  is  to  be  understood.  We  ought  to  take  it  therefore  ex- 
actly as  it  is  given  us,  neither  more  definitely  nor  less  definitely,  and 
without  presuming  to  supply  or  modify  any  thing  with  respect  to  it. — 
We  must  receive  it  in  the  very  words  in  which  it  is  revealed  ;  nay,  those 
terms,which  are  unintelligible,  if  there  are  any  such,  should  be  preserved 
in  their  original  Greek  ;  for  how  can  that  be  translated  to  which  we  can 
attach  no  intelligible  signification  ?  I'liese  seem  to  be  fair  consequences 
from  the  principles  of  our  Trinitarian  brethren.  We  say  then  to  them, 
produce  to  us  any  passage  of  Scripture  which  contains  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinii^y,  and  we  will  give  to  every  word  of  it  our  most  unfeigned 
respect  and  acquiescence.  Show  us  a  single  example  of  doxology  to 
Faiber,  Son  and  iloly  Ghost,  and  you  shall  hear  it  from  our  mouths  as 
often  as  from  your  own.  Tell  us  where  to  find  one  instance  of  the 
plirase  God  the  Son,  or  God  the  Jloii/  Ghost,  and  you  will  never  hear 
another  objection  to  it  from  us.  Present  to  us  what  you  call  the  doc- 
trme  of  the  Trinity  in  any  form  in  wliich  you  truly  find  it  in  any  passage 
of  the  Scriutnres,  and  then  reproach  us  if  we  do  not  cheerfully  receive 
^t  exactly  in  ihat  form.     On  this  ground  Christians  of  every  name  jnjjht 


60 

To  reveaJ,  as  the  word  ifself  denotes,  is  to  disclose  what 
was  concealed,  to  make  known  what  was  covered,  to  throw 
liirht  upon  what  was  obscure.  Is  it  not  then  Incorrect  to 
say,  that  God  i^evcals  a  truih  to  us,  when  that  trnth  is 
expressed  in  ienns,  to  which  we  attach  no  dislind  ideas, 
and  w!ien  it  is  inpossible  that  human  language  could  have 
suppiied  any  clearei'  t'orm  of  expression  ? 

Mr.  Wardlaw  (p.  21,  '22.)  sfroniily  exposes  the  presump- 
tion of  being  startled  and  offended,  "  because  in  what  God 
reveals  concerning  his  own  iniinite  nature,  we  find  some- 
thing which  we  cannot  understand."  But,  who  is  oflTended 
at  this  ?  For  the  light  vouchsafed  to  us,  for  the  truths 
unfolded,  we  are  thankful  ;  we  do  not  co;nplain,  because 
our  iinowledge  after  all  is  very  limited.  But  we  think  it 
evident,  that  subjects,  whicii  we  cannot  understand  or 
coaiprehend,  to  us  are  not  revealed.  Mr.  Wardlaw 
attributes  this  objection  io  pride  :  "  In  pride,  in  reas'ning 
pride,  our  errour  lies."  And  I  confess  it  may  be  so. 
Notwithstanding,  therefore,  tJie  apparent  force  of  these 
observations,   I   would   still  maintain  a  humble  conviction, 

meet.  The  purity  of  our  worship  would  be  secured  by  using  only  the 
very  language  of  the  sacred  writers  in  our  ascriptions,  and  this  most  un- 
happy contention  might  be  forgotten. 

But  the  believers  otthe  Trinity  decline  this  proposal.  They  are  not 
satislied  with  any  form  of  their  doctrine.which  they  fnd  in  the  ISeriptures. 
IVow  this  can  be  explained  only  by  one  of  two  propositions.  Hthcr 
they  are  conscious  that  no  proposilicn  wliich  expresses  it  exists  in  the 
Bible,  or  else  they  think  that  they  can  state  the  doctrine  beiUr  tl.;in  it 
is  there  expressed.  The  first  supposition  is  undoubtedly  the  true cne. 
But  if  it  were  not,  all  the  remarks  just  made  on  the  imi)ropriety  oi'viing 
reason  to  state  or  apply  a  proposition,  nliiih  rrcso?i  ran  /?!  no  degree 
comprehend,  seem  to  apply  with  grei>t  force.  We  forbear  (o  speak  in 
in  this  connexion  of  the  temerity  of  being  "  wise  above  that  which  is 
written"  on  a  subject  confessedly  so  high  and  mysterious,  or  to  inquire 
ou  which  side  the  real  reverence  for  the  !?criptures  is  displayed.    Edit.] 


fl 


51 

thaf  my  understanding  is  weak  and  deceitful,  and  hence 
I  a;n   prepared    to   ad.nit    the    truth   of   any   unintelligible 
p."  )position,  which  is  supported  by   (he  authority  of  Scrip- 
ture. 

It  is   usual   with  Trinitarians  to  answer  the  objections 
against   the   tnysteriousness   of    their   principal   tenets    by 
saying,  that   there   is   mystery   in   every   thing   around  us. 
I  have  already  stated  the  fact,  which  it  would  be  the  height 
of  presumption  to    deny,   that   concerning    every   class    of 
beings   there    are   truths,   clear  to   superiour  inteliigenr.es 
though  seen  inlistinctly,  or    not   at    all,  by  us.     I  have  no 
objection   therefore   to    those    just    representations   of   the 
feebleness  and  limitation  of  the  hu  nin  faculties,  vviiich  are 
adapted  to  teach  us  candour  and  indulgence  for  the  erroars 
of  others,    and    modesty,  hu  nility,  and  caution   in    forming 
oir  ovn  opinions.      Bjt  I  mnst   protest  against  those  deso- 
lating pleas  for    religious   mystery,   which   tend  to  sap  the 
foiindations  of  all  human   kno.vledge,  and   to  introduce   an 
irkso  ne    skepticism   upon   every   subject.     Mr.    VV^ardlaw 
(p.  19.)  intimates,  that,  if  we  make  it  a  rule  to  understand  the 
Iterms  of  a  proposition  before  believing  it,  we  must  abandon 
'"some  of  the  fundamental  truths  even  of  Natural  Reliaiion.'* 
Hume  himself  went   scarcely  farther.*     When  such  senti- 
ments are  advanced,  the  contest  is  not  about  a  few  disputed 
outworks   of  the   Christian  system  ;    the  whole  fabrick  of 
religion  totters  ;  to  prevent  its  very  foundations  from  giving 
way,  we  are  bound  by  all   the  humane    and    all  the  pious 
obligations    to    assert,    that   upon    the  primary   truths   of 
religion  our  ideas  may  by  proper  attention  become   clear 

*  See  Hume's  "  Dialogues  on  Natural  Religion  ;"  which  demonstrate 
that  Orthodoxy  and  Skepticism  are  raised  upon  the  very  same  basis, 
vis.  the  alleged  indisdnccness  of  our  ideas  upon  all  subjects,  and  es- 
pecially upon  matters  of  religion. 


52 

and  certain,  aiul  that  it  is  only  upon  subjects  of  subordinate 
consequence  that  we  are  left  in  obscuritj. 

As  an  example  of  his  maxim,  that  we  cannot  always  un- 
derstand even  the  fundamental  truths  of  Natural  Religion, 
Mr.  Wardlaw  produces  the  attribute  of  Omnipresence,  (p. 
19,  32,  1.30.)  He  affirois,  that  we  use  the  expression, 
"  God  is  here,"  and  say  "  that  he  is  at  the  same  moment 
equally  present  in  the  remotest  part  of  the  universe,"  with- 
out annexing  to  these  words  any  distinct  ideas.  "  Have 
we,"  he  asks,  "ever  endeavoured  to  analyze  the  conceptions, 
which  these  modes  of  expression  appear  to  convey^  Is 
God,"  he  continues,  "  a  spiritual  substance,  infinitely 
extended  ?  Against  this  notion  of  infinite  extension  there 
have  been  advanced  powerfid,  perhaps  insurmountable, 
objections;  and  the  truth  is,  that,  if  we  imagine  we  possess 
any  conception  at  all  of  the  mode  of  the  Divine  omnipre- 
sence and  omniscience,  we  greatly  deceive  ourselves." 
Thus  Mr.  Wardlaw  appears  to  me  to  renounce  bis  belief 
in  the  Divine  omnipresence.  Theologians,  in  treating  upon 
this  subject,  have  made  a  distinction  between  the  virtual, 
and  the  actual  omnipresence  of  God.  His  virtual  omni- 
presence is  the  attribute,  by  which  he  is  able  to  produce 
effects  in  every  part  of  space.  His  actual  omnipresence  is 
the  extension  of  his  substance  through  every  part  of  space. 
The  former  Mr.  Wardlaw  appears  to  allow,  but  to  deny 
the  latter.  But  in  the  latter,  as  well  as  the  former,  all  sound 
theists  believe.  The  notion  of  a  spiritual  substance  infi- 
nitely extended  is  too  vast  to  be  fully  embraced  by  our 
understandings.  It  is  however  a  clear  and  distinct  idea, 
nor  is  there  any  force  in  the  objections  urged  against  it. 

The  true  state  of  the  case  with  respect  to  our  knowledge 
of  all  the  Divine  Attributes  is,  that  we  may  obtain  clear 
ideas  of  their  nature,  although  we  cannot  form  adequate 
conceptions  of  their  extent.     Astronomers  teach  us,  that 


53. 

the  distance  between  the  earth  and  the  sun  Is  more  than  93 
millions  of  miles.  No  one  has  in  his  mind  the  idea  of  a 
straight  line  so  long  as  95  millions  of  miles.  Such  a  con- 
ception is  too  great  for  our  capacity  to  comprehend.  Never- 
theless all  understand  the  meaning  of  the  terms  employed 
in  (he  proposition  ;  all  firmly  believe  the  fact;  and  may 
even  draw  deductions  from  it  with  unfailing  certainty.  In 
like  manner,  when  we  say,  that  God  is  either  infinitely 
extended,  or  infinitely  wise,  or  powerful,  or  good,  we  annex 
distinct  ideas  to  the  terms  "extended,"  "wise,"  "power- 
ful," and  "  good,"  although  our  ideas  necessarily  fall  short 
of  the  truth,  so  far  as  respects  the  degree,  in  which  these 
qualities  belong  to  the  Almighty. 

Whilst  therefore  we  admit  and  lament,  that  the  concep- 
tions of  the  generality  of  Professing  Christians  are  probably 
inaccurate  and  confused  even  upon  the  fundamental  truths 
of  Natural  Religion  ;  we  maintain  that  all  men  of  ordinary 
capacities  may  by  the  proper  use  of  their  understandings 
obtain  notions  of  the  Deity  clear,  distinct,  and  well-defined, 
and  that  Mr.  Wardlaw's  plea  for  believing  in  mysteries 
as  the  primary  truths  of  religion,  is  therefrre  ill-founded 
and  fallacious. 

Before  quitting  the  subject  of  mys'teries,  it  is  proper  to 
explain  the  use  of  the  term  in  the  New  Testament.  The 
word  "  Mysterjf^  is  there  employed  in  a  sense  widely 
difTerent  from  those  given  to  it  by  modern  Trinitarians.  It 
does  not  denote  any  thing  either  irrational  or  incomprehen- 
|sible  ;  it  signifies,  that  which  is  for  a  time  unknown,  but 
iwhich  nevertheless  may  be  clearly  understood.  Mystery 
is  properly  a  Greek  word  ;  the  English  term,  by  which  it 
may  be  most  exactly  rendered,  is  the  word  Secret.  The 
\Mysteries  of  a  Trade  are  the  Secrets  of  that  trade,  clearly 
comprehended  by  those  who  exercise  it,  but  unknown  t« 
men  of  other   professions.      The    Eleusiniau  Mysteries 


54 

among  the  ancient  Greeks  were  (lie  secrets  of  the  worship 
of  Ceres,  which  were  open  to  the  initiated,  but  hidden  trom 
the  vulgar.  So  the  mysteries  of  the  Christian  rehgion  are 
the  secrets,  which  were  unknown  to  mankind  unlil  Jesus 
Christ  came  to  reveal  or  discover  them.  But,  being  re- 
vealed, they  are  found  to  be  plain  and  consistent  truths, 
and  contain  nothing,  which  is  either  difficult  to  be  under- 
stood, or  apparently  absurd. 

Let  us  examine  some  passages   of  the   New  Testament, 
where  the  word  occurs. 

Mat.  xiii.  11.  When  our  Lord  was  asked  by  his  disci- 
ples, why  he  spoke  to  the  multitude  in  parables,  he  replied, 
"  Because  it  is  given  unto  you  to  know  the  mysteries  of  the 
kingdom  of  Heaven,  but  to  them  it  is  not  given  :"  that  is, 
The  disciples  were  favoured  with  the  knowledge  of  the 
h'dden  designs  of  God  concerning  the  establishment  and 
propagation  of  the  Christian  Religion  :  but  the  multitude 
had  not  such  a  revelation  ;  to  them  the  purposes  of  God 
were  still  mysteries,  being  concealed  from  their  inspection. 
Rom.  xi.  25.  "  For  I  would  not,  brethren,  that  ye 
should  be  ignorant  of  this  mystery,  (lest  ye  be  wise  In  your 
own  conceits,)  that  blindness  in  part  is  happened  to  Israel, 
until  the  fulness  of  the  Gentiles  be  come  in  ;"  that  is,  To 
prevent  vou  from  priding  yourselves  on  account  of  your 
superiority  in  religious  knowledge  to  the  rest  of  mankind,  1 
tell  you  this  secret,  that  many  of  the  Israelites  will  remain 
in  unbelief;  while  the  gospel  will  be  generally  received 
among  the  Gentiles  ; — a  prediction,  which  the  event  has 
proved  to  be  true  ; — a  fact,  which  probably  could  not  have 
been  known  without  supernatural  illumination,  but  which, 
being  revealed,  is  perfectly  plain  and  simple. 

In  the  same  epistle,  (Rom.  xvi.  2.5,  26.)  the  religion  of 
Christ  is  called  "  the  mystery,  which  was  kept  secret 
since  the  world  began,  but  now  is  made  manifest,  and, 


55 

by  the  Scriptures  of  the  prophets  according  to  the  com- 
mandment of  the  everlasting  God,  made  known  to  all 
nations  for  the  obedience  of  faith."  The  same  Apostle, 
in  writing  to  the  Corinthians,  (1  Cor.  ii.  7 — 10.)  calls  the 
matter  of  his  own  preaching  a  mystery  ;  "  We  speak  the 
wisdom  of  God  in  a  mystery  ;"  and  he  then  more  fuily 
explains  himself  by  adding,  "even  the  hidden  wisdom, 
which  iione  of  the  princes  of  this  world  knew^ — but  which 
God  hath  revealed  to  Christians  by  his  spirit." 

Because  he  was  employed  in  publishing  and  explaining 
to  mankind  the  purposes  of  God,  which  were  before  kept 
secret,  but  now  revealed,  he  says,  (1  Cor.  iv.  1.)  "Let  a 
man  so  account  of  us  as  ministers  of  Christ,  and  stewards  of 
the  mysteries  of  God.^'  In  his  sublime  description  ot  the 
last  day,  he  calls  the  general  resurrection  a  mj  stery,  (1  Cor. 
XV.  51 — 54.)  because  this  great  event  v;as  w.'iolly  unknown 
to  mankind,  until  it  was  foretold  by  Jesus  Christ,  who  brought 
life  and  incorrnption  to  light.  In  his  epistle  to  the  Ephe- 
sians.  Si.  Paul  applies  the  term  Mystery  \o  the  purpose  of  the 
Almighty,  which  he  kept  concealed  until  the  promulgation 
of  the  Gospel,  of  uniting  the  Jews  and  Gentiles  into  one 
Church.  God  is  described,  (Eph.  i.  9.)  as  ^^ having  made 
known  unto  us  the  mystery  of  his  will,  according  to  his  good 
pleasure,  which  he  hath  purposed  in  hiinseif;"  and  the  mys- 
tery is  then  explained  to  be,  "  that  in  the  dispensation  of  the 
fulness  of  times  he  would  gather  together  in  one  all  things 
in  Christ,  both  which  are  in  heaven  and  which  are  in  earlh.'^ 
Heaven  and  Earth,  according  to  the  curious  and  important 
observation  of  Mr.  Locke,  signify  the  Jewish  and  the  Gen- 
tile world.  Accordingly,  in  the  3d.  chapter,  (v.  1 — 6,)  the 
Apostle,  referring  probably  to  this  brief  and  enigmatical  ex-* 
pression,  says,  that  on  this  subject  he  had  written  to  them 
afore  in  few  words;  he  then  speaks  of  the  mystery  as  "  in 
I    Bther  ages  not  made  known  unto  the  sois  of  men,  as  it  is 


56 


now  revealed  unto  the  holt/  apostles  and  prophets  hy  the 
spirit  ;"  and  lastly,  he  explains  this  mj  slery  to  consist  in 
Ihe  following  fact,  "  that  the  Gentiles  should  be  fellow-heirs, 
and  of  the  same  body,  and  partakers  ofGod^s  promise  in 
Christ  by  the  gospel.'^ 

The  word  Mystery  is  employed  in  a  few  other  passages  ; 
but  those,  which  haAe  been  produced,  render  it  abundantly 
plain,  that,  according  to  its  Scriptural  use  it  does  not  denote 
any  thing,  which  is  either  contrary  to  reason,  or  incaj)able  of 
being  clearly  understood.  It  signifies  simply  a  secret  ;  that 
which  is  concealed  for  a  while,  but  may  be  disclosed  and 
made  manifest.  The  doctrines  of  the  Christian  religion  were 
mysteries  so  long  as  they  were  known  only  to  God ;  but  they 
ceased  to  be  mysteries  so  soon  as  they  were  revealed.  The 
occurrence  therefore  of  the  term  Mystery  m  the  New  Tes- 
tament gives  no  countenance  to  the  idea,  (hat  the  religion  of 
Christ  contains  any  thing  incomprehensible,  or  even  difficult 
to  be  conceived.  To  declare  a  mystery  is  not  to  raise  diffi- 
culties, but  to  resolve  them.  It  was  the  office  of  Jesus  (Matt, 
xiii.  35.)  to  "  idler  things,  which  had  been  kept  secret  from 
the  foundat ion  of  the  world.^' 

I  shall  conclude  this  Chapter  with  a  quotation  from  an 
eminent  divine,  who  will  not  be  charged  with  an  undue  prepos- 
session against  reiysteries  in  religion,  since  he  was  one  of  the 
most  distinguished  advocates  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity. 
*'  I  know  not  whence  it  comes  to  pass,  tiiat  men  love  to 
make  plain  things  obscure,  and  like  nothing  in  religion  but 
riddles  and  mysteries.  God  indeed  was  pleased  to  institute 
a  great  many  ceremonies,  (and  many  of  them  of  very  ob- 
scure signification,)  in  liie  .Tewisli  worship,  to  awe  their 
childisli  minds  into  a  greater  veneration  for  his  Divine  Ma- 
jesty. But  in  these  last  days,  God  hath  sent  Iiis  own  son 
into  tJie  world  to  make  a  plain  and  easy  and  perfect  revela- 
tion of  Iiis  will,  to  publish  such  a  religion  as  may  approve 


67 

i/self  toour  reason,  and  captivate  our  affections  by  its  natu- 
ral charms  and  beauties.  And  tiiere  cannot  be  a  greater  in- 
jury to  the  Christian  religion,  than  to  render  it  obscure  and 
unintelligible.  And  yet  too  many  there  are,  who  despise 
every  thing  which  they  understand,  and  think  nothing  a 
sutScient  trial  of  their  fiiith,  but  what  contradicts  the  sense 
and  reason  of  mankind. "'^'- 

*  Dr.  William  Sherlock's  "  Knowledge ofChrist,"  p.  131.  Forfiirther 
considerations  on  the  subject  of  mysteries  in  religion,  the  reader  is  re- 
ferred to  the  old  Unitarian  Tracts,  vol.  I.  Foster's  Sermons,  vol.  I. 
No.  7.  Toulrain's  Sermon  on  Mystery.  Campbell's  Gospels,  Diss.  IX. 
part  1st.  Rees'  Cyclopedia,  Article,  Mystery.  Schleusner's  Lexicon, 
■Voce  Mva-Tfiicv. 


S 


PART  II. 


IN^TRODUCTION. 


Having  endeavoured  to  determine  with  clearness  and  pre- 
cision the  principles,  by  which  every  inquirer  after  religious 
truth  ought  to  be  guided,  I  proceed  to  bring  forward  the  evi- 
dence in  favour  of  the  two  controverted  systems,  and  to 
judge  of  them  by  the  standard  of  these  principles.  In  the 
2d  Part,  I  shall  state  the  opinions  and  arguments  of  Unita- 
rians concerning  the  Unity  of  God,  the  Subordination  of 
Jesus  Christ,  and  the  use  of  the  terms  "  Holy  Spirit"  and 
<'  Spirit  of  God"  in  the  Sacred  Scriptures.  In  the  3d  Part, 
I  shall  consider  the  objections,  by  which  Mr.  Wardlaw  has 
attempted  to  invalidate  the  Unitarian  doctrines. 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE  MVIOENCE  FOR  THE  UNITY  OF    COD  FROM  THK  I,I6HT  OP  NATURE. 

By  the  Unity  of  God,  Unitarians  do  not  understand  merely 
a  vniiy  of  coxinsel,  or  that  there  is  no  distraction  of  plans, 
or  opposition  of  inclinations,  manifested  by  the  course  of  na- 
ture. They  mean  that  the  Universe  is  subject  to  one  simple 
and  undivided  Mind,  one  all- wise  Designer,  who  is  uncreated, 
unchangeable,  and  everlasting,  sufficient,  without  the  aid  of  any 
counsellor,  assistant,  or  associated  God,  for  the  production 


59 

of  every  effect,  which  is  exhibited  throughout  endless  time 
and  infinite  space.  This  doctrine  they  conceive  to  be  prov- 
ed by  the  appearances  of  the  material  universe,  as  well  as  by 
the  express  testimony  of  Revelation. 

The  argument  for  the  Unity  of  God,  derived  from  the  ap- 
pearances of  nature,  proceeds  upon  the  maxim,  which  is 
adopted  in  all  reasonings  from  effects  to  causes,  that  No 

MORE  CAUSES  OUGHT  TO  BE  SUPPOSED  THAN  ARE  NECES- 
SARY TO  ACCOUNT  FOR  THE  EFFECTS.  If  wc  keep  in  vicw 
this  universally  admitted  axiom,  and  trace  the  connexions 
and  analogies,  which  pervade  the  several  parts  of  nature, 
we  shall  perceive,  that  it  is  in  the  highest  degree  unreasona- 
ble to  believe  in  more  Gods  than  one. 

The  being,  who  made  one  blade  of  grass,  might  make 
another ;  he,  who  has  invented  aiid  formed  a  perfect  tree, 
might  invent  and  form  every  plant,  which  grows  upon  the 
earth.  One  intelligent  being  therefore,  capable  of  produc- 
ing a  part  of  the  vegetable  creation,  is  capable  of  producing 
the  whole  ;  so  that  the  supposition  of  more  than  one  is  totally 
unnecessary.  But  this  supposition  is  also  improbable  and 
absurd.  All  plants,  however  various,  have  many  common 
properties,  and  are  formed  according  to  one  general  model. 
They  are  all  nourished  by  air,  earth,  and  moisture  ;  they 
are  all  propagated  by  seed  ;  they  are  all  defended  from  the 
severity  of  the  weather  by  bark  ;  they  all  have  roots,  stalks, 
leaves,  adapted  to  their  several  functions  ;  and  not  an  in- 
stance is  known  of  any  species  of  plant,  which  does  not  bear 
flowers,  provided  with  the  admirable  apparatus  of  stamens, 
pistils,  or  other  organs,  necessary  far  perfecting  the  seed. 
That  all  these  contrivances  should  have  occurred  to  many 
independent  Deities,  is  incredible.  They  form  one  model, 
according  to  which  all  the  various  races  of  vegetables  are 
fashioned,  and  this  model  must  have  been  the  contrivance  of 
one  mind. 


60 

AVe  may  apply  the  same  mode  of  reasoning  to  the 
animal  creation.  The  God,  who  could  make  one  man, 
could  make  any  number  of  men.  The  supposition  of  one 
God  therefore  is  sufficient  to  account  for  the  formation  of 
the  human  race.  It  is  also  in  the  highest  degree  improba- 
ble, that  a  number  of  independent  Deities  would  by  any 
chance  or  fatality  conspire  to  create  a  race  of  beings,  so 
singular,  so  complicated,  and  at  the  same  time  so  admirably 
adapted  to  their  siUialion.  In  like  manner  it  maj'^  be 
observed,  that  all  the  tribes  of  animated  creatures,  quadru- 
peds, birds,  insects,  and  fishes,  exhibit  in  the  organs,  by 
which  they  eat,  breathe,  move,  and  perform  the  other 
funclions  of  life,  some  common  features  of  resemblance, 
which  prove  that  the  whole  animal  creation  owes  its  exis- 
tence to  one  contriving  mind. 

If,  in  the  next  place,  we  consider  the  connexion,  which 
subsists  between  the  animal  and  vegetable  kingdoms,  we 
shall  perceive  that  he,  who  causes  all  plants  to  spring  out 
of  liie  ground,  is  the  very  same  being,  who  gives  life  to  all 
animals.  Plants  were  evidently  intended  to  supply  food 
lo  animals,  and  animals  are  furnished  with  all  the  necessary 
oigans  for  procuring  nutriment  from  plants.  The  flowers 
and  fruits  of  certain  plants  require  the  co-operation  of 
certain  animals,  as  the  necessary  medium  for  perfecting  and 
dispersing  the  seed,  which  end  is  accomplished  by  contri- 
vances in  the  one  class  of  beings,  corresponding  to  contri- 
vances in  the  other  class.  Another  adaptation  of  the 
vegetable  to  the  animal  kingdom,  which  is  pregnant  with 
the  most  salutary  results,  appears  from  the'  celebrated 
discovery  of  Priestley,  that,  when  animals  have  vitiated  the 
air  by  breathing  it,  plants  produce  in  it  that  change,  which 
renders  it  again  fit  for  respiration.  But  not  only  are  these 
two  tribes  Jf  beings  adapted  to  one  another  so  as  to  co- 
operate towards  the  accomplishment  of  the  most  important 


61 

purposes  ;  they  are  also  to  a  considerable  degree  similar 
in  their  structure.  The  bark  of  the  vegetable  orders  cor- 
responds, for  example,  to  the  skin  of  animals  ;  and  many 
other  striking  points  of  analogy  are  well  known  to  the  natu- 
ralists. From  tlie  connexion  and  resemblance  therefore, 
which  are  seen  between  the  vegetable  and  the  animal  crea- 
tion, we  are  induced  to  conclude,  that  one  designing  cause 
contrived  them  both. 

Let  us  now  consider  the  relations,  which  the  innumerable 
tribes  of  plants  and  animals  bear  to  the  solid  ground,  to  the 
rivers,  the  seas,   the  ocean,    and  the  atmosphere  :  we  shall 
be  convinced  that  the  constitution  of  the  earth  itself  is  ihe 
contrivance  of  the   same   God,  who   produced  its  various 
contents.     The  atmosphere,  which  encircles  the  globe,  is 
one  uniform   substance,   and  cannot  be  supposed  to  have 
been  formed  by  more  than  one  cause.    It  is  necessary  for  the 
support  of  plants  and  animals  ;  and,  being  thus   intimately 
related  to  them,  it  must  have   been   created   by   the  same 
intelligent   Author,   who   has   made  for  them  every  other 
requisite  provision.     The  collections  of  water  on  the  earth 
also  contribute  to  the  welfare  of  the  animal  and  vegetable 
tribes,  by  supplying  through  the  medium  of  the  atmosphere 
that  moisture,  which  is  no  less  necessary  to  them  than  the 
air  and  the  soil.     The  seas,  from  which  vapours  are  raised, 
the  atmosphere,  which  with  buoyant  elasticity  conveys  them 
over  the  earth,  and  then  drops  them  in   showers   upon   the 
thirsty  hills,  the  various  tribes  of  plants  and  animals,  which 
are  nourished   by   this    refreshing    distillation,  are  closely 
bound  together,    and  wisely  accommodated  for  the  joint 
production  of  the  most  beneficial  effects.     How   could   this 
result  have  been  expected,  if  one  Deity  had  poured  out  the 
seas,  another  spread  forth    the   atmosphere,   and   another 
formed  the  races   of  animals  and  plants  ?     In  this  case  it 
would  have  been  in  the  highest  degree  improbable,  that 


68 

one  part  ot  the  globe  would  have  corresponded  to  another 
with  such  admirable  exactness.  Since  therefore  the  earth 
we  inhabit  is  one  complete  whole,  all  the  parts  of  which  arc 
mutually  dependent,  so  that  nothing  can  be  taken  away 
without  injuring  what  remains,  the  unity  of  plan  so  strikingly 
discernible  must  be  considered  as  proving  the  unity  of  its 
contriver. 

Biit  the  earth,  though  complete  in  itself,  is  only  a  part 
of  another  far  greater  system.  In  this  system  the  unity  of 
plan  indicates  with  equal  clearness  the  unity  of  its  cause. 
In  its  centre  is  the  sun,  which  dispenses  the  necessary 
^portions  of  light  and  heat  to  all  the  surrounding  bodies, 
and  at  the  same  time  retains  them  in  their  orbits  by  its  at- 
traction. The  planets,  including  our  earth,  move  round  this 
centre  with  the  greatest  uniformity.  They  are  subject  to 
ihe  same  laws.  They  all  describe  in  their  courses  the  same 
geometrical  figure,  viz.  the  Ellipse ;  they  all  move  in  the 
sa(ne  direction,  and  with  degrees  of  swiftness  determined 
by  one  rule  ;  they  have  all  nearly  the  same  shape,  that  of 
a  globe ;  they  all  experience  the  changes  of  day  and  night, 
and  the  vicissitudes  of  the  seasons.  These  features  of 
resemblance  place  it  beyond  a  doubt,  that  the  same  power- 
ful Creator,  who  formed  the  Earth,  formed  also  the  other 
planets,  Avhich  have  the  same  constitution,  and  are  subject, 
so  far  as  we  know,  to  the  same  laws.  The  close  connex- 
ion between  the  planets  and  the  sun  proves  also  the  unity 
of  their  cause  ;  and  thus  the  whole  solar  system  appears  to 
be  the  work  of  one  mind,  who  first  contrived  its  plan  and 
determined  upon  its  laws,  and  then  constructed  the  whole 
out  of  disorderly  matter  according  to  the  sublime  concep- 
tions of  his  eternal  reason. 

Lastly,  the  Fixed  Stars,  though  placed  at  immeasurable 
distances  beyond  the  limits  of  our  solar  system,  confess 
the  same  almighty  Author.     The  light,  which  comes  from 


&3 

them,  possesses  all  the  admirable  properties  of  the  light, 
which  comes  from  the  sun.  If  the  sun  were  placed  at  a 
sufficient  distance  from  us,  it  would  present  exactly  the 
same  appearance  as  a  fixed  star.  We  cannot  doubt  there- 
fore that  the  fixed  stars  are  suns,  which  resemble  ours  in 
their  nature  and  uses,  and  which  consequently  must  hav6 
the  same  cause  with  ours. 

Thus,  by  traversing  in  imagination  all  the  parts  of  crea- 
tion from  the  least  to  the  greatest,  and  observing  their 
resemblances  and  relations  to  one  another,  we  arrive  at  the 
great  conclusion,  that  all  are  the  contrivance  and  workman- 
ship of  one  Almighty  Mind. 

Should  any  one  still  object,  that  the  universe  may  possi- 
bly have  been  planned  by  the  counsel  and  co-operation  of 
many  Divinities,  we  refute  the  assertion  in  the  following 
manner.  Ei'her  all  of  these  supposed  Divinities  were 
fallible  and  limited  in  their  capacities,  or  one  of  them  at 
least  was  infinitely  perfect. 

If  any  one  of  them  was  infinitely  perfect,  his  wisdom  and 
omnipotence  were  alone  sufficient  for  the  formation  of  the 
universe.  To  suppose  the  existence  of  any  associated 
creator,  is  therefore  to  assign  more  causes  than  are  neces- 
sary to  account  for  the  effects.  One  Infinite  Mind  is 
competent  to  the  production  of  every  thing  which  exists. 
To  believe  therefore  in  any  other  designer,  either  of  con- 
fined or  unlimited  powers,  is  to  violate  the  established 
principles  of  reasoning. 

The  other  supposition,  that  all  the  Deities  concerned  in 
the  creation  of  the  universe  were  limited  and  imperfect  in 
their  faculties,  is  equally  untenable.  Such  beings  could 
not  co-operate.  Discord  would  arise  in  their  counsels^ 
False  and  confined  views  would  suggest  opposite  schemes, 
the  execution  of  which  would  fill  all  nature  with  confusion. 
The  idea  of  a  number  of  imperfect  and  finite  Divinities  is 


64' 

laerefore  contradicted  by  the  beautitul  uniformity  of  plan, 
which  binds  together  all  the  parts  of  creation  in  indissoluble 
harmony,  and  whicli  continues  unimpaired  through  ages  of 
ages.  "  If,"  says  Lactantius,  "  there  were  in  an  army  as 
many  commanders  as  companies,  it  could  neither  be  drawn 
up  in  order,  nor  led  out  to  battle ;  for  all  would  follow 
their  own  private  opinions,  and  do  more  harm  than  good. 
So  in  the  kingdom  of  nature,  unless  there  was  one  supreme 
head,  to  whom  the  care  and  management  of  the  whole 
belonged,  all  things  would  be  disjointed  and  fall  to  destruc- 
tion." 


65 


CHAPTER  II. 


•XHfE    EVIDENCE    FOR    THE    UNITY     OP     GOD     FROM     THE     TESTIMONY     OF 

THE    SCRIPTURES, 


Notwithstanding  the  proof  of  the  Unity  of  God  af- 
forded by  the  harmonious  correspondence  of  parts  in  the 
material  creation,  it  is  probable  that  this  doctrine  would 
have  been  unknown  or  little  regarded,  if  it  had  not  been 
taught  to  mankind  by  the  clear  and  authoritative  voice  of 
Divine  Revelation.  In  almost  every  page  of  the  Bible  it 
shines  with  incomparable  lustre.  To  reveal,  establish,  and 
propagate  this  tenet,  to  which,  however  sublime  and  ra- 
tional, men  have  in  all  ages  evinced  a  strong  disinclination, 
was  the  great  end  proposed  to  be  accomplished  by  the  in- 
spiration of  the  Hebrew  Prophets,  and  by  the  splendid  se- 
ries of  miracles  recorded  in  the  Old  Testament.  To  pro- 
mulgate the  same  great  truth  among  heathen  nations,  and 
ultimately  to  effect  its  universal  reception  in  the  world,  ap- 
pears to  have  been  one  of  the  principal  purposes,  which 
God  designed  to  answer  by  the  mission  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ. 

For  examples  of  Scripture  testimonies  in  proof  of  this 
doctrine,  which  are  so  well  known  that  it  is  unnecessary  to 
quote  them  at  length,  I  refer  to  the  following  passages  ;  Ex. 
XX.  3.  Deut.  iv.  35,  39.  vi.  4.  1  Sam.  ii.  2.  Ps.  Ixxxvi.  10. 
Is.  xliv.  6.  xlv.  5,  6,  7,  14,  18,  21,  22.  Mai.  ii.  10.  Mat. 
xxiii.  9.  Mark  xii.  29,  32.  1  Cor.  viii.  4—6.  Gal.  iii. 
20.  Eph.  iv.  6.  1  Tim.  i.  17.  ii.  5.  vi.  15,  16.  James  ii. 
19.     Jude  25. 

10 


66 

These  texfs  will  be  understood  by  all  persons,  whose 
minds  are  not  pi  e-enga:!;ed  in  favour  of  an  opposite  opinion, 
as  asserting  the  existence  of  one  only  Supreme  Mind. 
When,  for  instance,  we  read,  that  "ihere  is  one  God,  and 
there  is  none  other  but  he,"  unless  we  are  swayed  by  pre- 
judice, these  words  will  at  once  suggest  the  idea  of  One 
Intelligent  Being,  alone  possessed  of  every  perfection,  the 
cause  and  original  of  all  things.  The  word  God  does  not 
denote  a  collection  of  persons,  or  a  cotmcil  of  intelligent 
agents;  it  signifies  simply  one  person  or  intelligent  agent. 
Consequently  every  text,  \vhi(  h  affirms  that  there  is  but 
one  God,  implies  that  there  is  but  one  person  in  the  God- 
head. 

Tie  Unity  of  God,  as  one  individual  person,  is  also  de- 
rote  i  throughout  the  Bible  by  the  almost  constant  use  of 
singular  prononns,  whenever  any  thought,  action,  attri- 
bute, or  condition,  is  ascribed  to  the  Supreme  Being.  In 
all  languages  the  personal  pronouns  of  the  singular  number 
are  understood  to  apply  only  to  one  person.  Thus,  if  I 
were  writing  a  letter,  by  employing  the  pronouns  of  the 
frst  person  and  singular  number,  /,  Me,  My,  1  should  con- 
fine my  assertions  to  myself  as  one  individual  person.  Bj 
using  the  pronouns  of  the  second  person  and  singular  num- 
ber. Thou,  Thee,  Thy,  I  should  indicate  that  my  asser- 
tions were  addressed  to  my  correspondent  as  one  indi- 
vidual person.  By  introducing  the  pronouns  of  the  third 
person  and  singular  luunber,  He,  Him,  His,  I  should  de- 
note, that  it  was  one  person  only,  whom  I  was  speaking  of. 
If,  on  the  contrary,  1  were  writing  a  letter  in  conjunction 
with  any  other  intelligent  being,  we  should  use  the  pronouns 
Tf^e,  Us,  Our;  or,  if  I  were  addressing  in  my  letter  more 
persons  than  one,  I  should  say,  If,  Yoit,  Yoiir ;  and,  if  1 
were  wri'iiig  any  tliiu;;;  of  more  than  one  person,  I  should 
say,  They,  Thciii,  Their. 


67 

Such  being  the  universal  application  of  pronouns,  it  is 
evident,  not  only  to  those  who  have  studied  Greek  and  He- 
brew, but  to  all  who  know  the  use  and  meaning  of  human 
speech,  that  throughout  the  whole  Bible  God  is  almost  uni- 
formly mentioned  as  one  person,  this  being  implied  in  the 
almost  constant  use  of  singular  pronouns. 

When  God  appears  to  Abraham,  he  thus  speaks ;  (Gen. 
xvii.  1,  2.)  "/am  the  Almighty  God  ;  walk  before  me,  and 
be  fhou  perfect ;  and  /  will  make  my  covenant  between  me 
and  thee."  To  represent  the  address  of  more  persons  than 
one,  the  following  language  would  have  been  employed  ; 
"  We  are  the  Almighty  God,  (or.  Almighty  Gods,)  walk 
before  ns  and  be  thou  perfect;  and  ne  will  make oa/r  cove- 
nant between  lis  and  thee."  The  Levites  are  stated  in  the 
book  of  Nehemiab,  (ch.  ix.  6.)  to  have  uttered  the  follow- 
ing language  of  adoration  ;  "  Thou,  even  thoii,  art  Lord 
alone  ;  thou  hast  made  heaven,  the  heaven  of  heavens,  with 
all  their  host,  the  earth  and  all  things  that  are  therein,  the 
seas  and  all  that  is  therein,  and  thou  preservest  them  all ; 
and  the  host  of  heaven  worshippelh  thee.'^  This  language 
necessarily  signifies,  that  the  Being,  whom  they  designate 
"  Lord  alone,"  was  one  person.  If  he  had  been  conceived 
to  be  more  than  one,  the  Levites  would  have  expressed 
themselves  thus ;  "  Ye,  even  ye  are  Lord,  (or  Lords,) 
alone ;  ye  have  made  heaven,  the  heaven  of  heavens,  &c. 
and  ye  preserve  them  all ;  and  the  host  of  heaven  worship- 
peth  you."  As  an  example  from  the  New  Testament, 
and  of  the  use  of  the  pronoun  of  the  third  person,  we  may 
take  Heb.  xi.  6.  "But  without  faith  it  is  impossible  to 
please  him  ;  for  he  that  cometh  to  God  must  believe  that 
he  is,  and  that  he  is  a  rewarder  of  them  that  diligently  seek 
him.'*  If  the  author  of  the  epistle  had  conceived  himself 
to  be  speaking  of  a  plurality  of  persons,  he  would  assuredly 
have    said,     "  Without   faith    it    is   impossible    to    please 


68 

them;  {ov  he  that  cometh  to  God,  Diust  believe  that  they 
are,  and  that  they  are  rewarders  of  them  that  diligently 
seek  them.'^ 

These  three  texts  are  only  produced  hy  waj  of  illustra- 
tion. The  other  passages,  which  assert  the  Deity  to  be 
one  person  by  applying  to  him  singular  pronouns,  extend 
from  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis  to  the  last  chapter  of  the 
Revelation.  Like  the  sands  upon  the  sea-shore,  they  can- 
not be  numbered  for  multitude. 

The  testimony  of  the  Scriptures  is  therefore  consonant 
to  the  voice  of  reason  in  teaching  that  there  is  but  one  Su- 
preme and  Infinite  Mind,  the  uncreated  Jehovah,  the  God 
of  Abraham,  and  of  Isaac,  and  of  Jacob,  who  is  alone 
Eternal,  Independent,  and  Immutable,  the  sole  original 
fountain  of  life,  perfection,  and  happiness. 


69^ 


CHAPTER  III. 


EVIDENCE    THAT    THE    FATHER    IS    THE    ONLY"    TRUE    GOD. 

Having  thus  shown,  from  the  clear  light  of  nature  con- 
firmed  by  the  ample  testimony  of  Revelation,  that  all  crea- 
ted things  were  produced  by  the  power,  and  are  directed 
by  the  providence  of  One  Infinite  Mind,  or  Person,  I  pro- 
ceed to  establish  another  distinguishing  article  of  the  Uni- 
tarian creed,  vis,  that  this  one  person  is  the  same,  who  is 
repeatedly  called  in  Scripture  the  Father,  and  conse- 
quently that  THE  Father  is  the  onlv  true  God. 

No  language  can  be  more  explicit  than  that  which  we 
find  upon  this  subject  in  the  first  epistle  of  Paul  to  the  Co- 
rinthians ;  (ch.  viii.  6.)  "  To  us  there  is  but  one  God,  the 
Father.^*  Equally  decisive  is  the  expression  employed  by 
the  same  Apostle  in  writing  to  the  Ephesians  ;  (Eph.  iv. 
4 — 6.)  "There  is  one  body  and  one  spirit,  even  as  ye  are 
called  in  one  hope  of  your  calling ;  one  Lord,  one  faith, 
one  baptism,  one  God  and  Father  of  all,  who  is  above  all, 
and  through  all,  and  in  you  allJ*^  These  passages  require 
no  comment.  They  declare  the  truth  to  be  proved,  vis. 
that  the  one  God,  who  is  above  all,  is  the  Father,  in  these 
very  words.  He  therefore,  who  derides  or  denies  this 
Unitarian  doctrine,  derides  or  denies  the  Scripture  itself. 

Another  passage,  held  deservedly  dear  by  those  who 
advocate  the  doctrine  of  the  proper  unity  of  God,  occurs  in 
the  solemn  prayer  uttered  by  our  Lord  before  his  cruci- 
fixion ;  (John  xvii.  3.)  "  This  is  life  eternal,  that  they 
might  know  thee,the  only  true  God,  and  Jesus  Christ  whom 
thou  hast  sent."     Our  Lord  addresses   one  person,  calling 


70 

that  person  "  the  only  true  God.^^  That  the  person  ad' 
dressed  was  the  Father,  is  evident  from  the  commencement 
of  the  prayer,  "  Father,  the  hour  is  come,"  (ver.  1.)  and 
from  the  repetition  of  the  title  "  Father"  in  several  of  the 
subsequent  verses,  (ver.  5,  11,  21,  24,  25.)  It  followe 
therefore,  that  the  Father  is  the  only  true  God. 

Another  passage,  which  proves  the  same  doctrine,  is 
that  where  Christ  asserts,  that  the  Father  alone  knew  the 
day  of  general  judgment.  (Mat.  xxiv.  36.  Mark  xiii.  32.) 
"But  of  that  day  and  that  hour  knoweth  no  man,  no,  not 
the  angels  which  are  in  heaven,  neither  the  Son,  but  the 
Father  only."  If  any  other  being  besides  the  Father  were 
God,  he  would  have  known  the  day  of  judgment.  Since 
therefore  the  Father  alone  knew  this  day,  it  is  manifest  that 
he  alone  is  the  omniscient  God. 

But  the  doctrine,  that  the  Father  is  the  only  true  God, 
rests  not  upon  these  few  passages,  however  clear  and  deci- 
sive. It  is  expressed  in  the  current  language  of  the  New 
Testament  by  the  common  use  of  (he  term  Father  as 
another  name  for  the  One  Supreme.  Let  the  reader  con- 
sult any  of  the  following  passages,  and  he  will  find  that  (he 
Supreme  Deity,  the  One  Only  God,  is  (here  designated  by 
that  single  phrase,  "The  Father."  Mat.  xi.  27.* 
Luke  X.  22.*  John  i.  18.  iii.  35.  v.  23,*  26,  36,*  37,  45. 
Ti.  37,  44,  45,  46,*  57.  viii.  27,  29.  x.  15.*  xii.  49,  50. 
xlii.  1,3.  xiv.  6,  8,  9,*  10,**  11,*  13,  24,  26,  28,  31.* 
XV.  9,  26.*  xvi.  3,  15,  16,  17,  25,  27,  28,*  32.  xviii.  IL 
XX.  21.  Actsi.  4,  7.  1  John  i.  2,  3.  ii.  1, 15,  16,  22,  23,* 
24.  iii.  1.  iv.  14.     2  John  4,  9. 

N.  B.  An  asterisk  placed  after  a  verse  denotes  the  repe- 
tition of  (he  title  "  Father'^  applied  to  (he  Dei(y. 

In  o(her  passages,  (which  I  shall  only  refer  (o,  leaving 
the  diligent  reader  to  examine  (hem  for  himself,)  (he  one 
only  God  is  denominated,  "  God  the  Father  ;"  John  vi. 


71 

^r.  Gal.  i.  1,  3.  Eph.vi.23.  Phil.  ii.  11.  2  Tim.  i.  2. 
Titus  i.  4.  1  Pelei-  i.  2.  2  Peter  i.  17.  2  John  3.  Jude 
1.  "  God  and  the  Father,"  or  "  God  even  the 
Father;"  James  i.  27.  iil.  9.  "  God  our  Father  ;" 
1  Cor.  i.  3.  2  Cor.  i.  2.  Eph.  i.  2.  Phil.  i.  2.  Col.  i.  2. 
1  Thess.  i.  1.  2Thess.  i.  1,  2.  1  Tiro.  i.  2.  Philem.  3. 
"  God  and  our  Father,"  or  "  God  even  our  Father  ;" 
Gal.  i.  4.  Phil.  iv.  20.  1  Thess.  i.  3.  iii.  11, 1.3.  2  Thess. 
ii.  16.  "The  Father  of  mercies,"  which  means  "  The 
very  merciful  Father  ;"  2  Cor.  i.  3.  "  The  Father  of 
GLORY,"  which  means  "  The  glorious  Father  ;'"'  Eph.  i. 
1  7 .  and,  as  our  Lord  employs  the  title,  addressing  his  dis- 
ciples, "  Your  Father  who  is  in  heaven,"  Mat.  v.  45, 
48.  vi.  1.  vii.  11.  xviii.  14.  xxiii.  9.  Mark  xi.  25,  26. 
"  Your  heavenly  Father,"  Mat.  vi.  14,  26,  32.  Luke 
xi.  13.  "  Your  Father,"  Mat.  vi.  8,  15.  x.  20,  29.  Luke 
Ti.  .36.  xii.  30,  32.     "  Thy  Father,"  Mat.  vi.  4,  6,*  18.* 

This  collection  of  testimonies  to  the  Unitarian  doctrine 
might  be  swelled  out  by  the  addition  of  (he  passages  in 
which  the  one  true  God  is  called  the  Father  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Clwist.  These  all  bear  upon  the  same  point,  but 
are  omitted  here,  because  (here  will  be  occasion  (o  refer  to 
them  hereafter.  Bu(  more  (han  a  hundred  proofs  have 
been  produced  already,  which,  I  conceive,  must  impress 
every  unprejudiced  inquirer  with  the  conviction,  that  the 
Father  alone  ought  to  be  the  God  of  Christians. 

The  opinion  of  Unitarians  upon  this  subject  is  fur(her 
confirmed  by  all  (hose  passages,  which  represent  the  Father 
as  the  proper  object  of  Supreme  worship.  The  form  of 
prayer,  which  Jesus  prescribed  for  (he  use  of  his  disciples, 
commences  with  this  invocation,  "  Our  Father  who  art  in 
heaven."  (Mat.  vi.  9.  Luke  xi.  2.)  When  our  Lord 
foretells  to  (he  woman  of  Samaria  (he  approaching  substi- 
tu(ion  of  spiri(ual  in    place  of    rilual  worship,  he  distinctly 


11 

menlions  the  Father  as  the  proper  object  of  adoration  ; 
(John  iv.  21,  23.)  "  Woman,  believe  me,  the  hour  cometh, 
when  ye  shall  neither  in  this  mountain,  nor  yet  at  Jerusalem, 
worship  the  Father. — The  hour  cometh,  and  now  is,  when 
the  true  tvorshippers  shall  worship  the  Father  in  spirit  and 
in  truth  ;  for  the  Father  seeketh  such  to  worship  him.^^ 
In  conformity  with  this  general  direction,  our  Saviour 
exhorted  his  Apostles  to  address  themselves  in  prayer  io 
the  Father,  as  to  the  being  who  was  able  and  willing  to 
grant  their  petitions  ;  (John  xvi.  23.)  '*  Verily,  verily,  I 
say  unto  you,  whatsoever  ye  shall  ask  the  Father  in  ray 
name,  he  will  give  it  you."  See  to  the  same  purpose 
John  XV.  16.     Mat.  xviii.  19. 

The  conduct  of  our  blessed  Lord  was  agreeable  to  bis 
precept  :  (Mat.  xi.  25,  26.  Luke  x.  21.)  «  At  that  time 
Jesus  answered  and  said,  "  I  thank  thee,  O  Father,  Lord 
of  heaven  and  earth,  because  thou  hast  hid  these  things 
from  the  wise  and  prudent,  and  hast  revealed  them  unto 
babes  ;  even  so,  Father,  for  so  it  seemed  good  in  thy  sight." 
That  it  was  the  practice  of  Jesus  to  address  himself  in  the 
language  of  supplication  to  the  Father,  is  likewise  manifest 
from  the  following  passages  ;  Mat.  xxvi.  39,  42,  53.  Mark 
xiv.  36.  Luke  xxii.  42.  xxiii.  34,  46.  John  xii.  27,  28. 
xiv.  16.  xvi.  26.  xvii.  1,  5,  11,  21,  24,  25. 

In  this  respect,  as  in  all  others,  the  Apostle  Paul  was  a 
follower  of  Christ.  To  give  thanks  for  all  things  to  the 
Father  was  his  practice,  (Eph.  iii.  14.  Col.  i.  3.)  and  his 
precept.     (Rom.  xv.  6.    Eph.  v.  20.  Col.  i.  12.  iii.  17.) 

Thus  are  we  authorized  by  the  examples  and  the  com- 
mands of  J^-sus,  our  master,  and  of  the  Apostle  Paul,  to 
consider  the  Father  as  the  only  proper  object  of  supreme 
adoration.     Hence  we  conclude,  that  he  is  the  only  God. 

So  clear,  numerous,  and  decisive  are  the  proofs,  which 
establish  the   L^nitarian  doctrines,  1st,  that  God  is  one  sim- 


73 

pie  and  undivided  mind  or  person,  and  2ndl7,  that  that  one 
person  is  the  Father. — And  is  il  not  an  unspeakable  satis- 
faclion  to  have  the  subject  thus  simplified  and  cleared  of 
mystery  ?  Must  not  the  humble  worshipper,  who  laments 
that  his  piety  is  checked,  not  only  by  the  importunities  of 
appetite  and  the  attractions  of  material  objects,  but  by  the 
real  difficulty  of  contemplating  with  fixed  attention  a  being 
unseen,  unfelt,  and  unheard,  rejoice  in  every  discovery, 
which  contributes  to  render  the  sublime  work  of  praise  more 
easy  as  well  as  more  delightful  ?  But  to  enlarge  on  these 
views,  though  useful  as  well  as  agreeable,  would  be  to 
depart  from  the  line  of  strict  Scriptural  argumentation.  I 
proceed  therefore,  in  the  next  Chapter,  to  state  and  defend 
the  Unitarian  doctrine  on  the  person  of  Christ. 


II 


74 


CHAPTER  IV. 


4TATE.MKIvT  OF  THE  I'lVlTARIAN  DOCTRINE  CONCERNING  THE  PERSOKT 
OF  CHRIST.  EVIDENCE  THAT  KE  WAS  NOT  GOD,  BUT  A  DISTINCT 
BEING    FROM    KIM. 

In  the  Sermon,  prearhed  at  the  opening  of  the  Unitarian 
Chapel  in  Glasgow,  I  have  stated,  (p.  12,  13.)  that,  all  hough 
Unitarians  diifer  among  themselves  concerning  the  3Iiracu- 
lous  Conception  and  Pre-existence  of  Christ,  some  reject- 
ing, and  others  believing  these  tenets,  yet  Ihej  all  deny  (hat 
he  was  the  Elernal  God  ;  and  those  of  them,  who  believe 
that  he  created  the  material  world,  nevertheless  conceive, 
that  in  the  execution  of  this  work,  he  was  only  employed  as 
an  instrument  in  the  hands  of  the  Deity,  and  unite  with  the 
general  body  of  Unitarians  in  maintaining,  that  he  was  not 
possessed  of  underived  wisdom  and  independent  power. 
The  distinguishing  principles  of  Unitarianism  therefore, 
which  it  is  now  my  object  to  defend,  are  these;  that  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  was  not  God,  but  a  distinct  being  from 
him  ;  that  he  was  inferiour  and  subordinate  to  the  Father  ; 
and  that  he  received  from  the  Father  all  his  Wisdom  and 
his  Power.  To  these  doctrines  it  is  commonly  objected, 
that  they  lower  the  dignity  of  the  Saviour.  Let  the  can- 
did reader  bear  in  mind  the  maxim,  acknowledged  on  all 
hands,  and  laid  down  at  the  commencenjent  of  our  inquiry,, 
that  the  truth  of  religions  doctiines  ought  to  be  tried,  not 
by  tiie  standard  of  our  fancies,  wishes,  and  feelings,  but  by 
the  Word  of  God. 

If,  with  a  sincere  desire  of  arriving  at  the  truth,  we  apply 
to  this  source  of  information,  we,  in  the  fust  place,  observe 


15 

numerous  passa^-es,  which  represent  Jesus  Christ  as  a  diS' 
Unci  being  from  God.  Thus  Sr.  Paul,  in  his  epistle  to  the 
Romans,  (ch.  v.  1.)  makes  the  following  assertion  ;  "  We 
liave  peace  with  God  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Chrisi.^^ 
Two  different  beings  are  here  presented  to  our  conteinpla- 
lion.  The  first  is  the  being,  to  whom  we  are  reconciled  ; 
the  second  is  the  mediator,  through  whom  we  are  reconcil- 
ed to  him.  The  first  is  called  God.  Since  therefore  we 
know  that  there  is  only  one  God,  it  necessarily  follows,  that 
the  second  h  not  God. 

The  same  distinction  is  commonly  made  in  the  benedic- 
tions at  the  commencement  of  the  epistles  ;  "  Grace  be  to 
you  and  peace /ro/Ji  God  our  Father,  and  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ;''  Rom.  i.  7.  1  Cor.  i.  3.  2  Cor.  i.  2.  E.fh.  i.  2. 
Phi!,  i.  2.  1  Thess.  i.  1.  2  Thess.  i.  2.  Philem.  3.  and 
with  a  slight  variety  of  expression,  Gal.  i.  3-  1  Tim.  i.  2, 
2  Tim.  i.  2.  Titus  i.  4.  *'  Grace  and  peace  be  multiplied 
un.'o  you  through  the  knowledge  of  God,  and  of  Jesus  ovr 
Lord  ,-"  2  Peter  i.  2.  "  Grace  be  with  you,  mercy  and 
peace,  from  God  the  Father,  and  from  the  Lord  Jesits 
Christ."  2  John  3.  To  these  passages  may  be  added  the 
salutation  of  Paul,  Eph.  vi.  23.  "Peace  be  to  the  brethren, 
and  love  with  faith,  from  God  the  Father,  and  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ.''  Also  the  blessing  of  tiie  same  Apostle  upon 
the  Thessalonians,  2  Thess.  ii.  16.  "  Now  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  himself,  and  God  even  our  Father,  who  hath  loved 
us,  and  hath  given  us  everlasting  consolation  and  good  hope 
through  grace,  comfort  your  hearts,  and  stablish  you  in 
every  good  word  and  work ;"  and  his  devoi:t  wish,  1  Thess. 
iii.  II."  Now  God  himself  and  our  Father,  and  our  Lord 
Je^ms  Christ,  direct  our  way  unto  you."  Each  of  these 
17  passages  expresses  a  pious  and  benevolent  wish  of  favour 
and  assistance  from  two  distinct  beings.  One  of  the  two  is 
in  every  instance  called  "God  :"  to  tiie  other  this  title  i<? 


76 

never  applied  ;  and,  since  it  is  certain  that  there  is  but  one 
God,  the  inference  appears  irresistible,  that  this  other 
person,  namely,  "  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  is  not  God. 

The  sa;n3  conclusion  may  be  drawn  from  the  ;narked 
distinction  between  the  one  true  God  and  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  in  p;\s3ages,  containing  ascriptions  of  praise  to  the 
Supreme  Being,  or  giving  directions  concerning  his  wor- 
ship. Rom.  xvi,  27.  "  To  God  oxly  wise  be  glory 
through  Jestis  Christ  for  ever."  Eph.  v.  20.  "  Giving 
thanks  always  for  all  things  unto  God  \nd  the  Father 
in  the  name  of  our  Lord  Jesns  Christ.''^  Col.  iii.  If- 
"  Whatsoever  ye  do  in  word  or  deed,  do  all  in  the 
name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  giving  thanks  to  God  and  the 
Father  bi/  him."  Heb.  xiii.  15.  "  Bi/  him  {Jesus) 
therefore  let  us  offer  the  sacrifice  of  praise  to  God  con- 
tinually." 1  Peter  ii.  5.  "  Ye  also,  as  lively  stones,  are 
built  up  a  spiritual  house,  a  holy  priesthood,  to  oiTer  up 
spiritual  sacrifices,  acceptable  to  God  by  Jestis  Christ." 
All  these  Scriptures  point  out  one  being,  namely  God,  to 
whom  thanksgiving  and  praise  are  justly  offered,  and  a 
second  person,  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  through  whom,  or 
in  the  name  of  rvhom,  these  services  are  to  be  rendered  to 
God. 

Further,  there  are  various  passages  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, which  assert  that  Jesus  Christ  was  with  God,  (such 
as  .Tohn  i.  1,  2.)  or  that  God  was  with  him,  (such  as  John 
iii.  2.  Acts  X.  38.)  These  passages,  while  they  teach  that 
Jesus  was  nearly  allied  to  God  in  his  endowinenis  or  his 
office,  at  the  same  time  prove  that  he  was  a  distinct  being 
from  God.  To  illustrate  this  phrase  by  a  simple  example; 
it  has  been  conjectured,  that  Luke,  the  evangelist,  was  Ihe 
same  man,  who  is  called  in  Paul's  epistles  Sylvanus.  We 
may  conceive  of  the  cpicstion  being  settled  in  the  following 
manner.     Suppose  we  were  to  find  in  any  part  of  the  New 


77 

Testament  this  expression,  "  Luke  was  with  Sylvanus.*' 
We  should  ImRiedialely  conclude,  thai  Luke  was  not  Syl- 
Taniis,  but  a  different  person.  In  like  manner,  when  we 
find  if  asserted,  (hat  "  the  Word  was  with  God,"  or  that 
"  God  was  with  Christ,"  we  draw  the  obvious  inference, 
tha?  Jesus  Christ  was  not  God,  but,  though  favoured  Avith 
an  i.itimate  communion  with  him,  a  totally  distinct  being. 
The  same  conclusion  might  be  derived  from  the  expression 
of  Paul,  (2  Cor.  v.  19.)  that  "  God  was  in  Christ." 

We  find  it  frequently  asserted  in  the  gospel  of  John, 
(ch.  iii.  2.  viii.  42.  xiii.  3.*  xvi.  10,  16,  17,  27,  28,*  30. 
xvii.  13.  XX.  17.)  that  Jesus  came  from  God,  and  that  he 
went  to  God.  That  God  could  come  from  himself,  or 
go  to  himself,  is  a  manifest  absurdity.  These  expressions 
therefore  iaiply  a  clear  distinction  between  God  and  Christ, 
as  two  different  persons. 

The  following  26  passages,  (and  more  might  have  been 
added,)  will  be  found,  upon  the  examination  of  the  diligent 
inquirer,  to  mark  the  same  opposition  between  God  and 
Christ,  as  two  distinct  beings,  sustaining  different  characters 
and  standing  in  different  relations.  For  the  sake  of 
brevity,  I  omit  quoting  them  at  length  ;  but  happily  the 
Bible  is  in  every  one's   hands. 

John  xiv.  1.  xvii.  3.  Acts  ii.  22.  Rom.  v.  11.  2  Cor.  ii. 
17.  iii.  4.  V.  18.  xii.  19.  Gal.  i.  1.  Eph.  iv.  32.  v.  2.  Phil, 
ii.  11.  ill.  14.  Col.  iii.  3.  1  Thess.  i.  1.  v.  18.  2Thess.  i.  U 
I  Tim.  i.  1.  ii.  5.  2  Tim.  iv.  1.  Heb.  xiii.  20,21.  James  i. 
1.   1  Peter  v.  10.  2  Peter  i.  1.  Rev.  i.  1.  vii.  10. 

I  conclude  this  compendious  view  of  the  proofs,  tJbat 
Jesus  Christ  was  a  distinct  being  from  the  one  true  God, 
by  referring  to  two  passages  in  the  epistles  of  Paul,  2  Cor. 
iv.  4.  and  Col.  i.  15.  in  which  our  Lord  is  said  to  be  "the 
linage  of  God  ;"  to  the  parallel  assertion  of  the  writer  to 
the  Hebrews,  (Heb.  i.  3.)  that  he  was  "  the  express  ima^c 


1f8 

qf  God^s  person  ;"  and  to  the  remark  of  Paul,  (Phil.  li.  6.) 
that  Christ  was  "  in  the  form  of  God.'*  To  say,  that  any 
person  is  the  image  of  himself,  or  in  (he  form  of  himself, 
woiikl  be  absolute  nonsense.  When  a  resemblance  is 
asserted  to  exist  between  two  beings,  the  assertion  neces- 
sarily implies,  Ihat  these  two  beings  are  distinct  from  one 
another.  The  passages  jost  quoted  consequently  teach 
us,  that  our  Lord  was  like  God,  but  not  God  himself. 

The  proofs,  which  have  been  adduced  in  this  chapter, 
show  that  Jesus  Christ  is  not  God,  but  another  being  dif- 
ferent from  him.  The  same  doctrine  of  a  distinction 
between  God  and  Christ  is  taught  with  equal  clearness  in 
the  passages,  which  v.'ill  be  brought  forward  in  the  three 
next  chapters  to  prove  that  our  Lord  is  inferiour  and 
subordinate  to  the  Father,  and  that  he  received  from  the 
Father  all  his  wisdom  and  his  power.  The  passages  now 
to  be  produced  are  therefore  doubly  decisive  ;  they  involve 
«ne  proof  within  another. 


79 


eHAPTER  V. 


EVfDENCB  THAT   OUR   LORD   JESUS   CHRIST    IS    INFERIOUR   AND   SUBORDI- 
NATE   TO    GOD    THE    FATHER. 

«  Mr  Father  is  greater  than  I."    John  xiv.  28.     This 

testimony  is  so  clear  and  explicit,  that  it  does   not  admit  of 

illustration. 

"  Ye  are  Christ's,  and  Christ  is  God's  ;"   1  Cor.  iii.  23. 

that  is,  As  Christians  are  subject  to  the  dominion  of  Christ, 

so  Christ  is  subject  to  the  dominion  of  God. 

"  But  I  would  have  you  know,  that   the   head  of  every 

man  is  Christ ;  and  the  head  of  the  woman  is  the  man  ;  and 

fhe  head  of  Christ  is  God.^^   1  Cor.  xi.  3.     This   passage 

plainly  signifies,  that,  as  man  ranks   above   woman,   and  as 

Christ  is  superiour  to  his  disciples,  so  God  is  superiour  to 

Christ. 

The  subjection  of  our  Lord  to  the  one  true  God,  the 

Father,  is  described  by  a  great  variety  of  expressions. 
He  was 

Chosen  by  God;  "Behold  my  servant,  whom  I  have 
chosen.^*     Mat.  xii.  18. 

Appointed  by  God;  "Faithful  to  him  that  appointed 
/lim."  Heb.  iii.  2. 

Sanctified  by  God  ;  "Him,  rvhom  the  Father  hath  sanc- 
tified.''' John  X.  36. 

Inspired  by  God  ;  "  I  will  put  my  spirit  upon  him." 
Mat.  xii.  18.  "The  spirit  of  the  Lord  (Jehovah) 
is  upon  me."  Luke  iv.  18.  quoted  from  Is.  Ixi.  1. 
"God  giveth  not  the  spirit  by  measure  unto  him." 
John  iii.  34. 


/^ 


80 

Anointed  hv  God:  Jehovah  "hath  anointed  me  fo 
preach  the  gospel  to  the  poor."  Luke  iv.  18.  "  He 
said  unto  them,  But  who  u  say  ye  that  1  am  ?  Peter 
answering  said,  The  Christ  (that  is,  the  Anointed)  of 
God.^^  Luke  ix.  20.  "  The  rulers  were  gathered 
together  against  the  Lord  (i.  e.  Jehovah)  and  against 
his  Christ,  {or,  his  Anointed,  see  Ps.  ii.  2.)  For  of 
a  truth  against  thy  holy  child  Jesus,  whom  thou  hast 
anointed,  both  Herod  and  Pontius  P  late,  with  the 
Gentiles  and  the  people  of  Israel,  were  gathered 
together."  Acts  iv.  26,  27.  "  God  anointed  Jesus  of 
Nazareth  with  Ihe  holy  spirit  and  with  power."  Acts 
X.  38.  "  God,  even  thy  God,  hath  anointed  thee  with 
the  oil  of  gladness  above  thy  fellows."  Heb.  i.  9. 
Given  by  God  ;  "  God  so  loved  the  world,  that  he  gave 

his  only-hegotten  son.^'  John  iii.  16. 
Sent  by  God  ;  "  Then  said  Jesus  to  them,  (the  Apostles,) 
"  Peace  be  unto  you  ;  as   my   Father  hath   seiit  wie, 
even  so  send  I  you."  John  xx.  21.     "  As  Thou  hast 
sent  me  into  the  world,   even  so  have  I  also  sent  theni 
into  the  world,"     John  xvii.  18.     See   also  Luke  iv. 
18,  43.     John   iii.  17,  34.  iv.  34.  v.  24,  30,  36,  37, 
88.  vi.   38,  39,  40,  44,  57.  vii.   16,   18,   28,  29.  viii. 
16,  18,  26,  29,  42.  ix.  4.  xii.  44,  45,  49.  xiv.  24.  xv- 
21.  xvi.  5.  xvii.  3,  21j  23,  25.     Acts  iii.   26.     Rom. 
viii.  3.     Gal.  iv.  4.     1  John  iv.  9,  10,  14. 
That  God  could  be  Chosen,  Appointed,  Sandijled,  In- 
spired, Anointed,  Given,  or  Sent,   especially  by  himself, 
is  plainly  impossible.     But  the  application  of  these  expres- 
sions to  Jesus  agrees  with  his  assertions,  that    he  came  to 
do  the  will  of  a  superiour,  and  not  his  own,  which  asser- 
tions he  often  repeated  during  the  course  of  his  ministry, 
and  which  prove  decidedly  his  subjection  to  the  only  true 
God.     "  My  meat  is  to  do  the  will  of  him  that   sent  me, 


81 


/ 


and  to  finish  his  work.'"  John  iv.  34.  "  I  canre  dowu 
from  heaven,  not  to  do  mine  own  will,  but  the  will  of  him 
that  seiil  iue."  John  vi.  38.  "  I  have  not  spolien  of  mj- 
self,  hu'  the  Father  who  sent  me,  he  gave  me  a  command- 
ment, what  1  should  say,  and  what  I  should  speak."  John 
xii.  49.  "  That  Ihe  world  niaj  know  that  I  love  ihe  Father, 
and  as  the  Father  gave  me  commandment,  even  so  I  do, 
arise,  let  us  go  hence."  John  xiv.  31.  See  also  John  xv. 
10.  XV ii.  4.  xviii.   11. 

To  ihe  same  head  may  be  referred  those  passages,  in 
which  Jesus  is  said  to  have  come  in  the  name  of  the  Lord, 
Mat.  xxi.  9.  Mark  xi.  9.  Luke  xix.  3«.  John  v.  43.  xii. 
13.  Every  messenger  is  inleriour  to  the  person,  in  whose 
name  he  comes,  from  whom  he  receives  his  commission,  or 
with  whose  authority  he  is  invested. 

Further,  Jesus  is  called  the  Servant  of  God.  The 
phrase,  which  expresses  this  title  in  the  original  Greek, 
occurs  in  the  four  following  passages  ;  Mat.  xii.  18.  Acts 
iii.  26.  iv.  27.  30.  In  the  passage  from  the  gospel  of 
Matthew,  it  is  rightly  translated  Servant.  In  the  three 
others  this  rendering  is  avoided  by  the  authors  of  the  com- 
mon Version  ;  but  the  sense  of  the  original  is  not  the  less 
decisive  in  proof  of  the  subjection  of  Christ  to  God.  The 
title  SERVA^fT  of  God  is  however  an  honourable  title  on 
account  of  the  majesty  of  the  person  served.  Still  more 
honourable  is  the  title  Son  of  God,  by  which  our  Lord 
is  repeatedly  designated  in  the  New  Testament,  and  which 
also  implies  inferiority  and  subordination  to  the  Father. 

That  the  name  Son  of  God  is  a  mark  of  blissful  and 
glorious  distinction,  is  evident  from  the  manner,  in  which 
it  is  applied  both  to  the  disciples  of  Christ  and  to  our 
Saviour  himself.  «  Behold."  says  the  Apostle  John,  ad- 
dressing his  fellow-christians,  "  what  manner  of  love  the 
Father  hath  bestowed  upon  us,  thai  we  should  be  called  tht 

12 


82 

l^7is  of  God.*^  1  John  iii.  1.  And,  at  the  commencement 
of  his  gospel,  (ch.  i.  12.)  he  speaks  of  the  privileges  and 
advantages  bestowed  by  Christ  upon  his  followers  in  these 
terms  ;  "As  many  as  received  him,  to  them  gave  he  power 
to  become  the  Sons  of  God. ^^  S(.  Paul  describes  in  the 
following  language  the  exalted  privileges  and  benefits  con- 
ferred upon  the  Sons  or  Children  of  God.  (Rom.  viii. 
14 — 21.)  "As  many  as  are  led  by  the  spirit  of  God,  they 
are  \he  sons  of  God.  For  ye  have  not  received  the  spiiit 
of  bondage  again  to  fear;  but  ye  have  received  the  spirit 
of  adoption,  whereby  we  cry,  Abba,  Falher.  The  Spirit 
itself  beareth  witness  with  our  spirit,  that  we  are  the  chil- 
dren of  God.  And  if  children,  then  heirs  ;  heirs  of  God, 
and  joinl-heirs  with  Christ  :  if  so  be  that  we  suffer  with 
him,  that  we  may  be  also  glorified  together.  For  I  reckon, 
that  the  sufferings  of  this  present  time  are  not  worthy  to  be 
compared  with  the  glory  which  shall  be  revealed  in  us. 
For  the  earnest  expectation  of  the  creature  waitelh  for  the 
manifes<a!ion  of  the  sons  of  God.  For  the  creature  was 
made  subject  to  vanity,  not  willingly,  but  by  reason  of  him 
who  hath  subjected  the  same  in  hope  :  because  the  creature 
itself  also  shall  be  delivered  from  the  bondage  of  corrup- 
tion, into  the  glorious  liberty  of  the  children  of  God." 
The  honourable  nature  of  this  relation  to  God  is  likewise 
enlarged  upon  by  the  same  Apostle  in  his  epistle  to  the 
Galatians,  ch.  iv.  4 — 7. 

Tiiat  this  title  is  an  eminently  glorious  one  is  also  mani- 
fest from  the  way,  in  which  it  is  in  many  instances  applied 
to  our  Saviour.  It  is  the  privilege  of  a  Son  to  be  admitted 
to  the  knowledge  of  his  Father's  mind  and  counsel.  Hence 
Jesus  describes  the  knowledge,  which  he  enjoyed  as  a 
Son  of  God  by  saying,  "  All  things  are  delivered  unto  me 
of  my  Father  ;  and  no  man  knoweth  the  Son  but  ilie 
Father,  neither  knoweth  any  man  the  Father  save  the  Son, 


83 

and  he  to  whomsoever  the  Son  will  reveal  him.'*  (Mat.  xi. 
27.)  At  his  transfiguration,  the  testimony  borne  to  his 
person  and  character  by  a  voice  fro;n  heaven  was  in  these 
words ;  (Mat.  xvii.  5.  Mark  ix.  7.)  "  This  is  my  beloved 
Si^n,  in  whom  I  am  well  pleased.^'  That  this  was  an 
honourable  attestation  appears  from  tlie  impression  made 
by  it  upon  the  mind  of  Petei,  who  says,  (2  Peter  i.  17.) 
"  He  received  from  God  the  Father  honour  and  glory, 
when  there  came  forth  a  voice  to  him  from  the  excellent 
glory,  "  This  is  my  beloved  Son,  in  whom  1  am  well 
pleased ;"  and  this  voice,  which  came  from  heaven,  we 
heard,  when  we  were  with  him  in  the  holy  mount."  It  was 
in  reply  to  his  profession  of  faith  in  the  exalted  character 
of  Jesus  as  the  Son  of  God,  that  this  Apostle  received 
the  most  splendid  and  animating  eulogy  ever  pronounced 
upon  a  disciple  of  Christ;  (Mat.  xvi.  15 — 18.)  "Jesus 
saith  unto  them.  But  whom  say  ye  tliat  I  am  ?  And  Simon 
Peter  answered  and  said,  Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of 
the  living  God.  And  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  him, 
Blessed  art  thou,  Simon  Barjona :  for  flesh  and  blood  hath 
not  revealed  it  unto  thee,  but  my  Father  which  is  in  heaven. 
And  I  say  also  unto  tliee,  that  thou  art  Peter,  and  upon 
this  rock  I  will  build  my  church ;  and  the  gates  of  hell 
shall  not  prevail  against  it." 

That  the  relation  of  Son  of  God  was  esteemed  by  the 
Jews  in  general  a  state  of  protection,  favour,  and  confi- 
dence, is  evident  from  the  insulting  language  of  the  chief- 
priests,  scribes,  and  elders,  when  they  saw  Jesus  suspended 
on  the  cross  ;  (Mat.  xxvii.  43.)  "  He  trusted  in  God  ;  let 
Him  deliver  him  now,  if  he  will  have  him  ;  for  he  said,  "  I 
am  the  Son  of  God."  St.  Paul  likewise  affirms,  that 
Jesus,  though  sprung  by  natural  descent  from  David,  was 
declared  to  be  the  son  of  God  by  his  power,  by  the  holy 
Spiritj  and  by  his  resurrection  from  Ihe  dead :  (Rom,  i. 


84 

3,  4.)  the  author  of  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews  proves  the 
superioiitj  of  Christ  to  angels  bj  the  evidence  of  passages, 
in  which  he  is  called  by  this  designation  :  (Heb.  i.  5 :)  and 
St.  John  states  it  to  be  the  distinguishing  characteri?tick 
of  a  Christian  to  confess,  that  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God; 
1  John  iv.  15.  "Whosoever  shall  confess  that  Jesus 
is  the  Son  of  God,  God  dwelleth  in  him,  and  he  in  God.'* 

It  is  evident  therefore,  that  the  appellation,  "  Son  of 
God,"  by  which  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  peculiarly 
called,  is  a  title  of  the  most  exalted  kind.  But  it  is  equally 
evident  from  the  very  meaning  of  the  words,  that  it  implies 
subjection  to  the  Father.  It  denotes  a  state  of  approba- 
tiouy  o?  favoiir,  of  protection,  and  of  privilege^  but  it  is 
also  a  state  of  inferiority,  of  dependence,  and  of  subordi- 
nation. Hence  all  the  passages,  in  which  this  glorious 
title  is  applied  to  Jesus,  confirm  the  Unitarian  doctrine 
concerning  his  person.  The  testimonies,  already  cited  as 
proofs  of  his  pre-eminent  dignity  above  other  creatures, 
express  likewise  his  inferiority  to  the  great  Father  of  all. 
The  other  passages,  in  which  this  title  is  applied  to  him, 
are  the  following:  Mat.  iii.  17.  iv.  3,  6.  viii.  29.  xiv.  33. 
xxvi.  63,  64.  xxvii.  40,  54.  Mark  i.  I,  11.  iii.  11.  v.  7. 
xiv.  61,  62.  XV.  39.  Luke  i.  32,  35.  iii.  22.  iv.  3,  9,  41. 
viii.  28.  ix.  35.  xxii.  70.  John  i.  34,  50.  iii.  16,  If,  18. 
X.  36.  xi.  4,  27.  xiv.  13.  xx.  31.  Acts  ix.  20.  Rom.  i. 
9.  V.  10.  viii.  3,  29.     1  Cor.  i.  9.     2  Cor.  i.  19.     Gal.  iv. 

4,  6.  Col.  i.  13.  1  Thess.  i.  10.  Heb.  i.  2.  v.  5.  1 
John  i.  3,  7.  iii.  8,  23.  iv.  9,  10,  14.  v.  9,  10,*  11,  12,* 
13,  20.*     2  John  3,  9. 

If  it  be  clear  as  the  meaning  of  human  speech  can  be,  that 
the  relative  situations  of  Father  and  Son,  imp\y  superiority 
in  the  Father  and  dependence  in  the  Son,  then  is  the  Uni- 
tarian doctrine  on  the  person  of  Christ,  vis.  that  the  Father 
is  greater  than  he,  confirmed   likewise  by  ail  those  Scrip- 


S5 

tureg,  in  which  the  one  true  God  is  called  his  Father. 
Thi^*  phrase  occurs  in  Ihe  following  passages,  which  coniain 
sixty  distinct  proofs  of  the  Inferiour  rank  of  Jesus.  Mat.  vii. 
21.  X.  32,  33.  xi.  27.  xii.  50.  xvi.  17,  27.  xviii.  10,  19,  35. 
XX.  23.  xxvi.  39,  42,  53.  Mark  viii.  38.  Luke  x.  22.  xxii. 
29.  KKiv.  49.  John  ii.  16.  v.  17.  vi.  32,  65.  viii.  19,*  28, 
38,  49,  54.  X.  18,  25,  29,*  32,  37,  xiv.  2,  7,  12,  20, 
21,  23,  28.  XV.  1.  8,  10,  15,  23,  24.  xvi.  10.  xx.  17.*  Rom. 
XV.  6.  2  Cor.  i.  3.xi.  31.  Eph.  i.  3.  iii.  14.  Col.  i.  3.  1  Pe- 
ter i.  3.     Rev.  i.  6.  ii.  28.  iii.  5,  21. 

B  it  the  one  Infinite  Mind  is  repeatedly  called  not  only 
the  Father  of  Jesus,  but  likewise  his  God.     Thus  St.  Paul 
(Eoh.  i.  17.)  "ceased  not  to  give  thanks"  for  the  Christians 
at  Ephesiis,"  making  mention  of  them  in  his  prayers,  that  the 
God  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Father  of  glory,  might 
give  unto  them  the  spirit  of  wisdom  and  revelation  in  the 
knowledge  of  him."     That   "  the  God  axd  Father  of 
OUR  Lord  Jesus  Christ"  was  one  of  the   grandest  and 
most  interesting  names,  by  which  he  was  known  among  the 
pri:nitive  Christians,  may  be  inferred  from  the  following  pas- 
sages, in  which   he   is  called  by  that  title;  John  xx.  17. 
Ron.  XV.  6.  2  Cor.  i.  3.  xi.  31.     Eph.  i.  3.  Col.  i.  3.     1 
Peter  i.  3.    Rev.  i.  6.     What   appellation  could   be   more 
adapted  to  raise  the  emotions  of  mingled  love  and  reverence, 
than  that  which  represented  him  as  the  being,  to  whom  Je- 
sus Christ  himself  looked  up  as  to  his  God  and  Father, 
whose  support,  protection,  instruction,  and  friendship  Jesus 
himself  sought,  in  order  that  he  might  be  the  supporter, 
the  protector,  the  instructor,  and  the  friend  of  his  meek  and 
humble  followers.     To  obtain  such  support,  Jesus  pleads  on 
the  cross,  "  My  God,  My  God,  why    hast  thou  forsaken 
me?"    (Mat.  xxvii.  46.   Mark  xv.  34.)   and,   on   the  other 
hand,  when  invested  with  the  highest  dignity  and  glory,  he 
still  maintains  a  becoming  sense  of  subordination  to  hib  God. 


I 


86 

Rev.  iii.  12.  Him  that  overcome th  I  will  make  a  pillar  In 
the  temple  of  my  God,  and  he  shall  go  no  more  out;  and  I 
will  write  upon  him  the  name  of  my  God,  and  the  name  of  the 
city  of  MY  God,  which  is  new  Jerusalem,  which  cometh 
down  out  of  heaven  from  my  God  ;  and  I  will  write  upon  him 
my  new  name."  The  words,  immediately  subjoined  by  the 
Apostle  John,  may  be  introduced  in  this  place  as  an  admo- 
nition to  those,  who  have  the  means  of  learning  the  unrivalled 
majesty  and  supreme  dominion  of  the  Father  ;  "  He  that 

HATH   AN   EAR,    LET    HIM  HEAR     WHAT   THE   SPIRIT    SAITH 

UNTO  THE  CHURCHES."  And,  Icst  any  one  should  oppose 
these  solemn  declarations  of  our  Lord  and  teachings  of  the 
holy  spirit,  by  replying  that  the  Almighty  was  the  Father 
and  God  of  Jesus  in  some  sense  which  we  cannot  compre- 
hend, let  us  remember  those  animating  and  consoling  words, 
which  our  newly-risen  Saviour  addressed  to  Mary,  and 
which  assure  us,  that  his  God  and  Father  is  ours.  "  I 
ascend  unto  my  Father  and  your  Father,  and  to  my  God 
and  your  God." 

A  further  collection  of  arguments  to  prove  the  inferiority 
of  Christ  might  be  amassed  by  collecting  those  passages 
which  assert  that  he  offered  np  prayer  to  God.  This  is  un- 
doubtedly the  attitude  of  a  dependent  and  a  creature.  A 
being,  who  possessed  in  himself  the  power  to  accomplish 
without  any  resistance  all  his  desires,  could  have  no  occa- 
sion to  pray.  Jesus  could  not  pray  to  an  equal,  much  less 
to  an  inferiour.  This  act  therefore,  so  often  performed  by 
him,  and  with  such  earnestness  and  humility,  establishes  the 
opinion  for  which  we  contend,  that  the  Father  was  greater 
than  he. 

The  same  doctrine  is  proved  by  the  fact,  that  he  had  a 
beginning,  and  was  created  by  God.  "  The  first-born  of 
every  creature,"  or  "of  the  whole  creation;"  Col.  i.  15. 
"  The  beginning  of  the  creation  of  God  ;"    Rev.  iii.  14.    If 


87 

Jesus  Christ  was  the  "  first-born,"  or  the  "  beginning"  of 
God's  creation,  it  is  manifest  that  he  was  apart  of  that  cre- 
ation. If  he  was  created  by  God,  if  he  was  born,  or  pro- 
duced into  being,  if  he  had  a  beginning,  although  the  first 
of  all  creatures  in  point  o(  time  as  well  as  eminence,  he  was 
inferiour  to  the  Eternal  Jehovah,  his  maker  and  the  maker 
of  all. 

I  conclude  this  portion  of  the  evidence  for  the  inferiority 
of  Jesus  to  God  with  his  reply  to  the  ruler,  who  kneeled  to 
him  and  asked  him,  "  Good  master,  what  shall  I  do  that  I 
may  inherit  eternal  life  ?"  Jesus  said  unto  him,  "  Why  call- 
est  thou  me  good  ?  There  is  none  good  but  one,  that  is, 
God."  Mark  x.  IT,  18.  Luke  xviii.  18,  19.  With  the  mo- 
desty and  piety,  which  gave  dignity  and  grace  to  the  whole 
of  his  behaviour,  our  Lord  declines  the  character  of  good- 
ness, and  acknowledges  himself  to  be  inferiour  in  this  respect 
to  God,  who  alone  is  perfectly  good,  and  to  whom  his  crea- 
tures should  at  all  times  yield  the  praise  of  inherent,  abso- 
lute, and  unceasing  beneficence. 


u 


CHAPTER  VL 


IJVIDENCE  FOR  THE  UNITARIAN  DOCTRINE  CONCERNING  THE  WISDOM  AND 
KNOWLEDGE  OF  CHRIST,  VIZ.  THAT  THEY  WERE  IMPARTED  TO  HIM  BT 
GOD  THE    FATHER. 

"  Whence  hath  this  man  this  wisdom  and  these  mighty 
works  ?"  was  a  question  asked  by  those  who  heard  our  Sa- 
viour's sublime  discourses,  and  saw  his  astonishing  acts  of 
power.   (Mai.  xiii.  54.)     The  same  question  is  still  agitated. 
The  replies  made  to  it  form  a  principal  distinction  between 
two  large  and  respectable  bodies  of  Christians.     The  Trin-  j 
itarians  maintain,  that,  as  Jesus  Christ  was  really  and  truly  '< 
God,  he  required  no  communication  of  knowledge  or  power  ' 
from  any  other  being,  but  was  from  all  eternity,  and  by  his  i 
own  nature,  infinilely  wise,  omniscient,  and  omnipotent.  The  ' 
Unitarians,  on  the  contrary,  assert,  that  he  derived  his  wis-  i 
dom,  his  knowledge,  and  his   power,  from   the  same  being  i 
who  brought  him  into  existence,  from  the  one  eternal  and  i 
almighty  God,   the  Father.     Both  parties  profess  to  follow  i 
the  Scriptures  as   their  guide.     To  them  therefore  we   ap-  j 
peal :   and  first,  let  us  inquire  what  the  Scriptures  teach  U8  ' 
concerning  the  origin  of  our  Saviour's  Wisdom  and  Know- 
ledge. 

The  question  seems  to  be  set  at  rest  by  the  plain  de- 
clarations of  our  blessed  Lord  hiuiself,  which  are  recorded  ' 
by  the  evangelist  Joha  in  great  abundance,  because  it  ' 
was  his  particular  design  in  writing  his  gospel  to  esta-  j 
hWah  the  divine  mission  of  Jesus,  and  thus  to  retrieve  ! 
many,  who  were  in  danger  of  lapsing  into  unbelief.  The  \ 
following  passages  are    selected  from  the    discourses  and  I 


89 

prayers  of  Jesus,  contained  in  the  gospel  of  this  apostle. 
"  The  Father  loveth  the  Son,  and  showeth  him  all    things 
that  himself  doeth."    John  v.  20.    "  As  I  hear,   I  judge  ; 
and  mj  judgment  is  just,  because  I  seek  not  mine  own  will, 
but  the  will  of  the  Father,  who  hath  sent  me."  ver.  30. 
*'  My  doctrine   is   not  mine,  but  his  that  sent  me  ;  if  any 
man  will  do  his  will,  he  shall  know  of  the  doctrine,  whether 
it  be  of  God,  or  whether  I  speak  of  myself."    vii.  16,  17. 
"  He  that  sent  me  is  true  ;  and  I  speak  to  the  world  those 
things  which  I  have  heard  of  (that  is,   from)  him."  viii.  26. 
"  As   my  Father  hath  taught  me,  I  speak  these   things." 
ver.  28.       "  I   speak    that  which   I   have    seen   with    my 
Father."  ver.  38.     "  I  have  not  spoken  of  (that  is,  from) 
myself  ;  but  the  Father,  who  sent  me,  he  gave  me  a  com- 
mandment,  what  I  should  say  and  what  I   should  speak  ; 
and  I  know  that  his  commandment  is  life  everlasting  ;  what- 
soever I  speak  therefore,  even  as  the  Father  said  unto  me,  ' 
so  I  speak."  xii.  49,  50.     "  All  things  that  I  have  heard  of 
(from)  my  Father,  I  have  made  known  unto  you."  xv.  15. 
*'  Now   they  (the  disciples)   have  known,   that  all    things, 
whatsoever  thou   hast  given  me,  are  of  thee  ;    for  I  have 
given  unto  them  the  words,  which  thou  gavest  me,  and  they 
have  received   them  and  have  kfiown  surely   that  I  came 
out  from  thee,  and  they  have  believed  that  thou  didst  send 
me."  xvii.  7,  8, 

In  each  of  these  passages  our  Lord  utterly  disclaims 
deliveriHg  doctrines  or  precepts  from  his  own  knowledge 
and  authority.  He  asserts,  that  he  was  enabled  to  deliver 
his  instructions  to  his  disciples  only  in  consequence  of  what 
had  been  "  given,"  "  shown,"  and  "  taught"  to  him  by  his 
Father,  only  in  consequence  of  what  he  had  "  seen"  and 
^'  heard"  with  God,  and  agreeably  to  the  "  commandment" 
of  a  Superiour. 

13 


90 

The  same  account  of  the  origin  of  our  Saviour's  wisdom 
is  given  by  St.  Paul  in  writing  to  the  Corinlhi.ins  ;  1  Cor.  i* 
30.  Jesus  Chv'iat*^  of  God  is  made  unto  us  wisdom. ^^  Let 
it  be  remembered,  that  there  is  no  dispute,  whether  our 
Lord  was  transcendently  wise.  All  good  Christians  con- 
fess from  their  hearts  his  godlike  wisdom,  and  are  filled 
with  wonder  "  at  the  gracious  words,  which  proceeded  out 
of  his  mouth."  The  only  question  is,  whether  be  was  wise 
eternally  and  independently  of  instruction,  or  whether  he 
was  made  wise  of  God. 

The  writer  to  the  Hebrews  commences  his  epistle  by 
declaring,  that  the  instructions  delivered  to  mankind  through 
Jesus  Christ,  like  those  previously  communicated  through 
the  Prophets,  came  originally  from  God,  who  spake  through 
him  as  well  as  through  them.  "  God,  who  at  sundry  times 
and  in  divers  manners  spake  in  times  past  unto  the  Fathers 
by  the  Prophets,  hath  in  these  last  days  spoken  unto  us  by 
his  Son."  Heb.  i.  1,  2.  Also,  at  the  beginning  of  the 
Apocalypse  we  are  informed,  that  the  Revelation  contained 
in  it  was  given  by  God  to  Jesus  Christ  ;  which  expres- 
sion, though  it  relates  to  a  very  limited  portion  of  our 
Saviour's  communications  to  mankind,  illustrates  the  origin 
of  his  general  knowledge  upon  sacred  subjects. 

With  these  representations  of  the  derived  knowledge  of 
Jesus  Christ,  we  may  contrast  the  following  august  de- 
scription of  tlie  undcrived,  unaided,  wisdom  of  Jehovah. 
*'  Who  hath  directed  the  spirit  of  the  Lord,  or  being  his 
counsellor  hath  taught  him  ?  With  whom  look  he  counsel, 
and  who  instructed  him,  and  taught  hira  in  the  path  of 
judgment,  and  taught  him  knowledge,  and  showed  to  him 
the  way  of  understanding  ?"  Isa.  xl.  13,  14.  It  is  the 
glory  of  God  alone  to  know  all  things  without  being  inform- 
ed, and  to  pursue  universally  the  best  and  wisest  end? 
without  being  advised. 


91 

If  there  wene  any  need  of  further  witness  to  ihe  truth  of 
the  Unitarian  doctrine  upon  this  subject,  we  might  insist 
on  the  passages,  briefly  noticed  in  the  last  Chupter,  which 
speak  of  the  inspiration  of  Christ,  The  omniscient  God 
could  not  be  inspired.  Knowing  all  things  without  com- 
munication, he  could  not  possibly  receive  any  addition  to 
his  all  comprehending  and  infallible  wisdom. 

To  conclude  this  discussion  ;  the  Scripture  teaches  us, 
that  the  knowledge  of  Christ  was  not  merely  derived,  but 
also  limited.  For  he  himself  asserted,  that  he  did  not 
know  the  day  of  general  judgment.  "  Of  that  day  and  that 
hour  knoweth  no  man,  no,  not  the  angels,  which  are  in 
heaven,  neither  the  Son,  but  the  Father,"  Mark  xiii.  32, 
The  Father,  who  alone  knew  this  day,  must  be  the  only 
God.  The  Son,  who  knew  it  not,  could  not  be  th^ 
supreme  God,  being  inferiour  to  him  in  knowledgCo 


92 


CHAPTER  VII. 


KVIUKNCK    FOR     THt     UNITARIAN    DOCTRINE     CONCERNINO     THE     ORIGIBi 
OF    CHRIST'S    POWEa,     VfZ.    THAT    IT    WAS    GIVEN    TO    HIM. 

The  most  common  and  obvious  idea,  by  which  we  are 
accustomed  to  conceive  of  God  as  distinguished  from  his 
creatures,  is  the  idea  of  Power.  A  vast  and  astonishing 
extent  of  power,  easCf  activity,  and  freedom  from  all  re- 
straint in  its  exertion,  and  dependence  upon  no  other  being 
for  the  continued  possession  of  it,  form  those  features  of  a 
Divine  character,  which  chiefly  engage  the  atiention  of 
mankind.  To  prove  that  any  person  is  a  God,  no  method 
can  be  more  direct  than  to  show,  that  he  is  possessed  of 
underived  and  independent  power.  I  conceive  therefore, 
that  we  might  reduce  the  whole  question  concerning  the 
Deity  of  Christ  within  this  short  compass.  Did  our  Saviour 
possess  his  power  without  having  received  it  from  any 
other  being,  and  did  he  exert  it  without  being  subject  to 
the  pleasure  and  control  of  any  other  ?  or  were  his 
authority,  his  glory,  and  his  majesty,  conferred  upon  him 
by  a  superiour  ?  The  former  side  of  the  question  is  espous- 
ed by  the  Trinitarians,  who  affirm  that  Jesus  Christ  was 
omnipotent  from  eternity  and  by  his  own  nature,  and  that  his 
power  is  incapable  of  any  increase  as  well  as  of  any  diminu- 
tion. The  latter  opinion  is  maintained  with  equal  firmness 
by  the  Unitarians,  who  assert,  that  all  the  power  of  Christ 
was  given  to  him.  Each  rank  of  disputants  appeals,  as 
usual,  to  the  Scriptures.  It  is  therefore  my  intention  in 
this  Chapter,  by  bringing  forward  all  the  passages  of  the 
New  Testament,  which  relate  to  the  power  of  Jesus,  to 


93 

enable  every  reader  to  decide  for  himself  the  principal 
question  at  issue,  vis.  whether  the  power  of  Christ  was 
given,  or  whether  it  was  widerived. 

For  the  sake  of  perspicuous  arrangement,  I  shall  contem- 
plate the  power  of  Christ  as  exercised  during  three  suc- 
cessive periods  of  his  existence  ;  first,  the  period  preced- 
ing his  incarnation  ;  secondly,  the  period  of  his  abode  upon 
this  earth  ;  thirdly,  the  period  subsequent  to  his  ascension 
into  heaven. 

I.  In  the  first  place,  we  shall  examine,  whether  it  is  the 
doctrine  of  the  New  Testament,  that  our  Lord,  was  possess- 
ed of  independent  power  and  of  underived  glory  and 
dominion  before  his  birth  of  the  virgin  Mary. 

I  have  already  stated,  that  many  Unitarians  altogether 
deny  the  existence  of  Christ  previously  to  his  conception 
in  the  womb  of  his  mother  ;  but  that  many  others  agree 
with  the  orthodox  Christians  in  asserting,  that  he  lived 
before  his  incarnation  in  a  state  of  glory,  and  was  employed 
by  the  Deity  as  an  instrument  in  creating  the  material 
world.  The  determination  of  these  lesser  differences  does 
not  belong  to  our  present  inquiry  ;  they  are  to  be  settled 
among  Unitarians  by  their  own  amicable  discussions.  The 
question  now  before  us  is,  Whether,  granting  the  pre- 
existence  of  Christy  he  enjoyed  before  his  incarnation  im- 
derived  power. 

The  only  passage  of  the  New  Testament,  which,  on  the 
supposition  of  Christ's  pre-existent  state,  ascribes  to  him 
glory  in  that  state,  occurs  in  his  solemn  prayer  to  his 
heavenly  Father,  recorded  in  the  17th  chapter  of  John's 
gospel ;  "  And  now,  O  Father,  glorify  me  with  thine  own 
self  with  the  glory  which  I  had  jvith  thee  before  the  world 
was.^'  (John  xvii.  5.)  The  question,  now  to  be  answered, 
is,  Whether  the  glory,  of  which  our  Lord  speaks,  belonged 
to  him  originally    by  his    own   nature,  or  whether  it  was 


94 

given  10  him  by  the  Fafher.  It  is  decided  by  the  subse- 
quent expressions,  relating  to  that  glory,  which  occur  in 
the  same  prayer.  In  verse  22,  where  our  Lord  unites  biin« 
self  in  interest  and  affection  with  his  disciples,  we  find  it 
spoken  of  in  these  terms  ;  "  Tiie  glory,  which  thou  gavest 
me,  I  have  given  them  :"  And,  in  verse  24.  he  prays.,  that 
his  disciples  might  be  with  him,  where  he  was,  "  that  they 
may  behold,"  says  he,  "my  glory,  which  thou  hast  given 
me ;  for  thou  loved-^t  me  before  the  foundation  of  the 
3Vorld."  If  therefore  it  be  true,  that  our  liord  enjoyed  a 
state  of  glory  "  before  the  world  was,"  or  "  before  the 
foundation  of  the  world,"  it  is  equally  true,  and  it  is  proved 
by  equal  evidence,  namely,  by  his  own  assertions  in  a 
solemn  prayer  addressed  to  the  Father,  that  that  glory 
mas  derived,  being  communicated  to  him  from  the  only 
original  fountain  of  all  authority,  power,  and   dominion. 

But  the  passages,  which  represent  Jesus  as  the  creator 
of  the  material  world,  also  suppose  the  exercise  of  power 
previously  to  his  incarnation.  These  passages  are  deci- 
gively  favourable  to  the  Unitarian  doctrine,  that,  if  Jesus 
was  concerned  in  the  formation  of  tjie  heavens  and  the 
earth,  he  was  only  employed  as  an  instrument  in  the  hands 
of  God  his  Father.  They  are  tlie  following  :  John  i.  3. 
'♦  All  things  were  made  by  him."  Terse  10.  "  The  world 
was  made  by  him."  Col.  i.  16.  *'  By  him  were  all  things 
created,  that  are  in  heaven  and  that  are  in  earth,  visible  and 
invisible,  whether  they  be  thrones,  or  dominions,  or  princi- 
palities, or  powers  ;  all  things  mere  created  by  him,  and 
for  him."  Heb.  i.  2.  "  By  him  He  (t,  e,  God)  made  the 
worlds. "=*«■'  These  passages,  as  I  have  now  quoted  (hem 
from  the  common  translation  of  the  New  Tesiament,  leave 

*  loiuit  produfing  Eph.  iii.  9.  as  a  proof  of  the  Unitarian  doctrine, 
because  the  words  "  Sta.  lo^-oy  Xg/a-Tw,"  "  through  Jema  C/irist,"  are  r^ 
jycted  hy  Gri^sbach- 


95 

it  undecnled,  whether  Christ  created  all  things  by  his 
own  untSerived  and  independent  authority,  or  merely  as  an 
insfiuuient  directed  by  the  Siipveme  Being.  In  the  Creek 
original  there  is  no  such  ambiguity.  The  preposition 
DiA,  in  these  passages  translated  By,  does  not  signify  by 
any  one  as  an  original  c«msc,  (for  this  sense  is  expressed 
by  aditlerent  preposition,  Hypo,)  but  it  denotes  Through 
ANY  THING  AS  AN  INSTRUMENT.  For  the  Sake  of  illus- 
tration 1  shall  take  the  first  example  of  the  occurrence  of 
DiA  in  the  New  Testament  :  Mat.  i.  22.  "Now  all  this 
was  done,  that  it  might  be  fulfilled,  which  was  spoken  of 
the  Lord  by  the  Prophet  ;"  or,  more  accurately,  "  which 
was  spoken  by  the  Lord  through  the  Prophet."  In  the 
first  place,  the  preposition  Hypo,  By,  points  out  the  Lord 
as  the  original  author  of  the  communication  ;  and,  in  the 
second  place,  the  preposition  Dia,  T^roz<^/j,  repiesents 
the  Piophet  as  the  medium,  through  whom  this  communi- 
cation was  conveyed  to  mankind.  The  same  distinction  is 
accurately  observed  in  all  cases,  (and  they  are  very  nume- 
rous,) in  which  the  New  Testament  writers  produce  quota- 
tions from  the  Pr(  phets  of  the  Old.  They  never  intro- 
duce a  prophecy  by  saying,  that  it  was  uttered  through 
the  Lord,  (sta.  t«u  K^g/ou,)  and  they  very  seldom,  if  ever,  say, 
thnt  i;  was  delivered  by  the  Prophet,  {um  rou  ngs^wot/,)  but 
through  the  Prophet,  and  by  the  Lord. 

The  preposition  Dia,  followed  either  by  a  Genitive  or 
Accusative  case,  occurs  in  the  New  Testament  about  630 
tinses.  It  is  used  to  denote  the  efficient  cause  of  the  pro- 
duction of  an  effect,  (of  course  governing  in  these  instances 
the  Genitive,)  about  290  times.  I  have  examined  all  the 
passages,  where  it  is  found.  I  have  observed,  that  its 
general  application,  when  used  to  point  out  an  efficient 
^ause,  is  to  represent  not  the  primary,  but  the  secondary, 


d6 

or  inslrumental,  cause.*  This  sense  of  the  word  seems 
indeed  lo  arise  naturally  from  its  original  acceptation.  It 
properly  sig;nifies  motion  through  a  j)lace.  Hence  it  haa 
been  transferred  by  an  obvious  process  to  the  way  or 
method,  by  jiasshig  through  which  any  object  is  attained, 
or  the  instrument,  by  means  of  which  any  end  is  accom- 
plished. 

From  reflecting  upon  the  primary  application  of  Dia  in 
reference  to  place,  its  common  use  in  Greek  authors,  and 
the  distinction  observed  in  the  New  Testament  between 
this  preposition  and  Hypo,  I  had  formed  a  judgment  of  the 
Scripture  testimonies  concerning  the  Creation  through 
Christ,  before  I  saw  the  above  remarks  in  any  other  author. 
I  was  lately  much  gratified  to  find  that  Origen,  who 
lived  at  the  beginning  of  the  third  century,  who  wrote  in 
Greek,  and  than  whom  none  of  the  ancient  Fathers  was 
more  learned,  more  honest,  or  more  industrious,  observed 
the  same  distinction,  and  reasoned  from  it  in  the  same  man- 
ner. In  his  Commentary  on  the  beginning  of  John's  Gos- 
pel, having  noticed  the  difference  between  Dia  and  Hypo, 
and  having  observed  that  in  Heb.  i.  2.  the  expression  (ft  ow,) 
Through  whom,  denotes  that  God  made  the  worlds,  or 
ages,  through  his  Son,  he  adds,  "  Thus  also  here,  if  all 
things  were  made  through  the  Word,  they  were  not  made 
by  the  Word,  but  by  one  more  powerful  and  greater 
(kan  the   fVord.^^-f     Likewise  Eusebius,  the  learned,  ac- 

*  Against  the  universality  of  this  rule  only  one  passage  presents 
much  difficulty  :  1  Cor.  i.  9.  J't  w  «ka>)3^«t£,  "  through  whom  ye  were 
called."  But  even  here  there  is  strong  evidence  for  considering  urt 
as  the  true  reading.  See  Griesbach.  Even  allowing  Dia  to  denote 
the  original  cause  in  two  or  three  passages,  still  the  probability  that  it 
denoted  the  instrumental  would  be  in  any  doubtl'ul  case  as  100  to  I. 

f  Ot/TCD  TWcjyv  X3«  ti^ttSi,  i<  ■xdLiT<t.  i^W  Tou  Aoyou  tynreo,  ov^  'TIIO  tou  AeyoV 
lyntfTO,  a/h'  'TIIO  xgHTToyo?  kai  /uti^ovo;  tta^o,  Tok  Aoyov- 

OiiitiKNis  Opkha,  Ed.  Dii  la  Rue.  v.  IV.  p.  6*. 


97 

•urate,  and  laborious  author,  to  whom  among  the  ancients 
the  Christian  world  is  chiefly  indebted  for  the  testimonies 
to  the  genuineness  of  the  New  Testament  writings,  and  who 
could  not  possibly  be  mistaken  about  the  common  meaning 
of  two  prepositions,  which  he  used  daily  and  hourly  in 
conversation  and  in  books,  explaining  the  commencement 
of  John's  gospel,  uses  these  words  ;  "  And  when  he  says, 
in  one  place,  (ver.  10.)  that  the  worlds  and  in  another, 
(ver.  3.)  that  all  things,  were  made  through  him,  he 
declares  the  ministration  of  the  Word  to  God.  For,  when 
the  evangelist  might  have  said,  "  All  things  were  made  by 
him,"  and  again,  "  The  world  was  made  by  him  ;"  he  has 
not  said  "  By  him,"  but  *'  Through  him  ;"  in  order  that 
he  might  raise  our  conceptions  to  the  underived  power  of 
the  Father  as  the  original  cause  of  all  things."*  Lastly, 
the  same  distinction  is  noticed  by  Philo,  the  Jew,  who  was 
contemporary  with  our  Savioin*,  who  wrote  in  Greek,  and 
in  several  parts  of  his  writings  expresses  the  difference 
between  a  supreme  and  a  subordinate  creator  by  the 
opposed  use  of  these  two  prepositions.  See  Wetstein's 
Note  on  John  i.  3. 

For  these  reasons  I  think  myself  authorized  to  assert, 
that  when  a  New  Testament  writer  employs  the  preposition 
DiA  to  point  out  the  cause  of  any  effect,  he  means  the 
instrumental,  and  refers  to  some  other  being,  either  ex- 
pressly mentioned  or  contemplated,  who  is  considered  as 
the  first  or  original  cause.  What  then  is  the  real  import 
of  the  passages  before  cited,  on   the  supposition  that  they 

*  Aiymv   (Te  AI'   aunou  yiymtiff^Ai,  ttots  /uev  tov  M,o<j-y.ov,  ttot*  S'i  Tit  TrttyTct,  to. 

l/5r:ig6T  Ksv  Tw  Qiou    'Ti^to'Tnaf     ^v!t.fAivo;   yovv   a    vjfJLyyihtfni  UTntVy     ''  rijtvTac. 

1^       'TIT  axiTou   eytverc,,'^  tuu  etu^ic,    "  Kou  o  xco-^ic    Xn'  ccurou  tysnTo,"    ot/v   *'  'Til' 

rtWToy,''    iipn,    AWtty    '<  AI'    OLVTOU    «n."       '/v'   j)(U«j    av*7r^|U^f'^1    itti     tuv    tu*  o\m 

iroinriKitv  Tcu  Hatpos  ai/S'fvr/stv 

EUSEBIUS  DK  ECCLES.  ThEOL.  LIB.  I.  C.  20. 

14 


98 

refer  to  the  creation  of  the  material  universe  ?  John  i.  3:. 
"  All  things  were  made  through  Christ  as  an  instrument, 
but  by  God  as  their  original  contriver."  Ver.  10.  "  Tfie 
world  was  made  through  Christ  as  a  subordinate  agent.''* 
The  passage  from  Colossians  has  the  same  import  ;  "  AU 
things  were  cieatcd  through  him  ;"  (t*  5r«vT*  ai'  oLwrm,  k,m  m 
ctvTov,  (mttTTur)  and  the  passage  from  Hebrews,  "  B)'  whom 
He  made  the  worlds,"  can  only  signify,  if  it  relates  to  the 
creation  of  the  material  universe  at  all,  that  God  made  the 
stars  and  planets  through  the  instrumentality  of  Jesus 
Christ.  The  Greek  words,  employed  in  these  passages, 
cannot  bear  to  be  interpreted  so  as  to  ascribe  to  our  Lord 
the  crealion  of  the  material  world  by  his  own  uncommuni- 
cated  omnipotence.  They  directly  contradict  the  nojion, 
that  Christ  stretched  out  the  heavens  alone,  and  made  the 
world  by  himself.  They  clearly  imply,  whether  they  be 
supposed  to  refer  to  the  formation  of  the  Earth  out  of  chaos, 
or  to  the  RE-formation  of  its  inhabitants  through  the  influ- 
ence of  the  Gospel,  that  Jesus  Christ  was  only  an  instru- 
Vient  in  the  work,  and  not  a  principal. 

In  the  longest,  and,  as  it  is  commonly  imagined,  the  clearest 
of  these  passages,  (that  from  Colossians,)  sufficient  evidence 
is  presented  to  enable  the  mere  English  reader  to  deter- 
mine, whether  in  the  creation  of  the  material  universe  Christ 
displayed  underived  glory.  After  stating  the  fact,  that  all 
things  were  created  through  him,  the  Apostle  assigns  the 
catise  of  this  fact  in  the  following  terms  ;  "  For  it  pleased 
the  Father,  that  in  him  should  all  fulness  dwell."  It 
appears,  that  the  reason  why  Christ  was  employed  in  the 
work  of  creation  was,  that  such  was  the  pleasure  of  the 
Father,  and  that  the  Father  bestowed  upon  liim  a  full  par- 
ticipation of  his  power  and  glory. 

Thus,  when  we  direct  our  view  to  the  first  supposed 
period  of  our  Lord's  existence,  that  preceding  his  incarna- 


99 

tion,  we  find  that  every  passage  of  the  New  Testament, 
which  ascribes  Id  hifn  poiver  in  that  period,  ascribes  it  to 
lii!n  as  a  being,  inferiour  to,  and  dependent  upon,  the  Father. 

il.  The  second  period  of  our  Lord's  existence  in  which 
I  proposed  to  contemplate  the  exercise  of  iiis  power,  is  the 
period  of  his  abode  upon  this  earth.  In  the  course  of  his 
pubiickrainistry  he  exhibited  the  astonishing  and  awful  proofs 
of  supernatural  power,  by  giving  sight  to  the  blind  and  rea- 
son to  the  insane,  by  healing  the  sick,  raising  the  dead,  and 
by  many  other  stupendous  miracles.  Here  aguin  the  ques- 
tion to  be  decided  is,  Whether  he  performed  his  mighty 
acts  by  underived  and  independent  power,  or  whether  he 
Was  enabled  and  authorized  to  exhibit  them  by  God  the 
Father.  We  may  ascertain  the  truth  partly  from  the  opin- 
ions of  those,  who  saw  onr  Lord's  miracles  performed,  but 
chiefly  from  his  own  clear  declarations. 

1.  Does  it  appear,  that  the  Apostles  and  hearers  of  GUI' 
Saviour,  who  attended  him  during  his  ministry,  and  actually 
beheld  the  exercise  of  his  stupendous  power,  were  thereby 
hiduced  to  consider  hhu  as  the  supreme  God  ? 

The  first  example,  which  I  shall  produce  in  answer  to 
this  question,  is  the  healing  of  the  Paralytick  related  in  the 
dth  cliapter  of  Matthew.  The  conclusion,  which  modern 
Trinitarians  draw  from  this  miracle,  and  from  the  manner  in 
which  Jesus  performed  it,  is,  that  he  was  the  supreme  God, 
and  that  he  healed  the  sick  of  the  palsy  by  his  own  un- 
derived oiunipolence.  On  the  contrary,  the  conclusion 
drawn  by  tliose,  who  saw  the  miracle  performed,  is  thus 
stated  by  the  Evangelist  ;  (Mat.  ix.  8.)  "  But,  when  the 
multitude  saw  it,  they  marvelled,  and  giorijied  God, 
who  had  given  such  power  unto  men.^*  Instead  of  adoring 
Jesus  as  the  original  author  of  the  cure,  they  glorified  God  ; 
and  the  reason  of  this  was,  because  God  "  had  given  such 
power  unto  men."     The  same  inference,  though  expressed 


100 

in  different  terms,  was  drawn  by  those,  who  witnessed  the 
raising  of  the  widow's  son  at  Nain.  We  are  informed, 
(Luke  vii.  16.)  that,  when  he  was  restored  to  life,  "  there 
came  a  fear  on  all,  a7id  they  glorified  God,  saying,  '  A 
great  prophet  is  risen  up  among  its,'  and,  '  God  hath 
visited  his  people.'  "  Here,  as  in  the  former  instance,  we 
observe,  that  the  people  were  induced  by  what  they  had 
seen  to  glorify,  not  Jesus,  but  God  ;  and  we  are  informed, 
that  the  reason  was,  because  they  conceived  Jesus  to  be 
"  a  great  prophet,"  whom  God  had  raised  up  among  them, 
and  in  giving  whom  he  had  "  visited  his  people."  Lest 
any  one,  inattentive  to  Scripture  phraseology,  shoidd  sup- 
pose the  expression,  "  God  hath  visited  his  people,"  to 
convey  the  heathenish  sentiment  of  the  appearance  of  a 
God,  clothed  in  human  flesh  and  dwelling  among  men,  I 
observe,  that  God's  visiting  his  people  means  in  Scripture 
nothing  more  than  the  arrival  of  some  great  benefit,  con- 
ferred by  the  Almighty.  Thus  we  read  in  the  book  of 
Ruth,  (ch.  i.  6.)  that  God  "visited  his  people  in  giving 
them  bread  ;"  which  only  signifies,  that  he  blessed  them 
with  a  remarkably  rich  harvest. 

Further,  the  Evangelist  John,  (ch.  vi.  14.)  having  de- 
scribed the  feeding  of  5000  men  with  five  loaves  and  two 
^shes,  adds,  "  Then  these  men,  when  they  had  seen  the 
miracle  that  Jesus  did,  said,  *'  This  is  of  a  truth  that 
prophet,  that  should  come  into  the  world  ;"  and,  having 
recorded  (ch.  ix.  ver.  17.)  the  case  of  the  blind  man,  to 
whom  Jesus  gave  sight,  he  says,  that  the  inference  ex- 
pressed by  the  man  upon  being  questioned  respecting  the 
power  and  character  of  his  benefactor  was  only  this, //taf  he 
was  a  prophet.  "  They  say  unto  the  blind  man  again, 
"  What  sayest  thou  of  him,  because  he  hath  opened  thine^ 
eyes  ?"  He  said,  "  He  is  a  prophet.' 


>» 


101 

The  conclusion,  suggested  by  the  miracles  of  Jesus  to 
h'lti  conleniporaiies,  is  most  clearlj  stated  in  his  conversa- 
tion with  Nicoderaiis,  recorded  in  the  3d  chapter  of  John's 
gospel.  Nicodemus  thus  commences  his  address,  "  Rabbi, 
we  know  that  thou  art  a  teacher  come  from  God  ;  for  no 
man  can  do  these  miracles  that  thou  doest,  except  God 
be  with  him.^*  The  more  intelligent  and  impartial  Jew,  it 
appears,  considered  the  miracles  of  Jesus  as  a  proof,  that 
he  was  "a  teacher  come  from  God,"  which  is  the  exact 
light,  in  which  thej  are  regarded  by  all  Unitarians.  They 
reasoned,  "  No  man  can  do  such  miracles  as  Jesus  does,'* 
(they  did  not  say,  as  a  Trinitarian  would,  "  Except  he  be 
God,  as  weil  as  man,"  but,)  "  except  God  be  with  him." 

Precisely  in  the  same  manner  is  the  origin  of  our  Lord's 
miraculous  powers  accounted  for  by  the  Apostle  Peter, 
who,  in  Acts  x.  38.  is  represented  staling  to  Cornelius  and 
his  household  the  substance  and  foundation  of  the  Christian 
faith.  "  That  word,"  says  he,  "  ye  know,  which  was 
published  thioughout  all  Judea,  beginning  from  Galilee 
after  the  baptism  which  John  preached,  how  God  anointed 
Jesus  of  Nazareth  with  the  holy  spirit  and  with  power,  who 
went  about  doing  good,  and  healing  all  that  were  oppressed 
of  the  devil ;  for  God  was  with  him.^^  And  on  the  day 
of  Pentecost,  when  his  mind  was  fully  illuminated  concern- 
ing the  pre-eminent  dignity  of  our  Lord's  character,  he 
thus  describes  it  to  the  assembled  multitude  in  the  name 
of  the  other  Apostles  ;  *'  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  a  man  approv- 
ed of  God  among  you  by  miracles  and  wonders  and  signs, 
which  God  did  b^'  {through)  him."  (Acts  ii.  22.)  The 
Apostle  Peter  therefore,  even  when  "  filled  with  the  holy 
spiril,"  instead  of  considering  the  miracles,  exhibited  by 
our  Saviour,  as  any  evidence  of  his  proper  Deity,  believed 
that  he  performed  them,  only  because  "  God  was  with 
him,"  because  "  God  had  anointed  him  with  the  holy 
fpirit  and  with  power,"  and  because  in  fact  "  God  did  the 


miracles  through  him,^^  God  being  the  real  author  of  the 
miracles,  and  Christ  the  medium,  through  the  instrumental- 
ity of  whom  they  were  exhibited.  A  circumstance,  which 
throws  a  clear  light  upon  this  subject,  is,  that  exactly  the 
same  account  is  given  (Acts  xv.  12.)  of  the  way,  itt  which 
the  Apostles  were  enabled  to  perform  miracles.  "  Then 
all  the  multitude  kept  silence,  and  gave  audience  to  Barna- 
bas and  Paul,  declaring  what  miracles  and  wonders  God 
had  wrought  among  the  Gentiles  by  (through)  them.** 
Conformable  to  this  explanation  is  the  view  presented  by 
the  Apostle  John  at  the  conclusion  of  his  gospel.  After 
describing  a  great  variety  of  miracles,  exhibited  by  our 
Lord,  he  thus  explains  his  design  in  recording  them  ; 
"  And  many  other  signs  truly  did  Jesus  in  the  presence  of 
his  disciples,  which  are  not  written  in  this  book  ;  but  these 
are  written,  that  ye  might  believe,  that  Jesus  is  the  Christy 
the  Son  of  God,  and  that  believing  ye  might  have  life 
through  his  name."  (John  xx.  30,31.)  We  see,  that  the 
beloved  disciple,  who  always  spoke  of  his  master  in  the 
most  glowing  terms  of  admiration  and  affection,  and  who 
wrote  his  history,  when  many  were  disposed  to  fall  away 
from  the  faith,  in  order  to  prevent  their  love  from  waxing 
cold,  never  regarded  the  miracles  of  Christ  as  a  proof  that 
he  was  God,  but  only  as  a  proof,  that  he  was  the  Messiahj 
Ihe  Son  of  God. 

Let  the  candid  reader  now  ask  himself,  Are  Unitarians 
to  be  blamed  for  denying  that  the  miracles  of  Christ  evince 
his  proper  Deity,  when  it  appears  from  the  New  Testa- 
ment, that  they  were  never  so  regarded  by  the  beloved 
John,  by  ihe  zealous  Peter,  nor  by  any  of  the  apostles  and 
first  disciples  of  our  [jord  ?  The  Jeyrs,  whose  nation  had 
been  signalized  by  the  display  of  miracles  during  many 
former  ages,  and  who  doubtless  were  best  able  to  judge  of 
the  nature  of  their  testimony;  the  Apostles,  who  attended 


103 

•ur  Lord  during  his  ministry  for  the  express  purpose  of 
being  qualified  to  publish  through  the  world  the  evidences 
of  his  dignilj  and  authority  ;  the  Primitive  Believers,  who 
by  beholding  these  miracles  were  converted  to  the  faith  of 
the  gospel,  and  who  must  have  felt  the  full  force  of  the 
awful  and  authoritative  manner  in  which  they  were  per- 
formed ;  the  sick,  the  lame,  the  blind,  the  lunatick,  who 
were  restored  to  perfect  soundness  of  mind  and  body 
through  the  all-commanding  efficacy  of  our  Saviour's  word  ; 
all  these,  with  every  motive  powerfully  working  upon  them 
of  gratitude,  of  personal  attachment,  and  of  personal  expe- 
rience and  actual  inspection,  only  inferred  from  the  miracles 
of  Jesus,  that  "  God  was  with  him,"  that  he  was  "  a  teacher 
come  from  God,"  "  a  prophet,"  and  "  the  Messiah,  the 
Son  of  God." 

2.  Having  considered  the  inferences,  derived  from  the 
miracles  of  Jesus  by  those,  who  saw  them  performed,  let 
us,  in  the  second  place,  inquire  what  account  he  himself 
gave  of  the  power,  by  which  he  exhibited  them. 

If  we  appeal  to  his  own  declarations,  we  find  him  utterly 
disclaiming  underived  power,  asserting  in  the  plainest  terms, 
that  he  could  of  his  own  self  do  nothing,  and  that  whatever 
power  he  possessed  was  conferred  upon  him  by  his  Father. 
Thus  (Mat.  xi.  27.  Luke  x.  22.)  he  says  to  his  disciples, 
"  All  things  are  delivered  unto  me  of  my  Father."  To 
the  Jews  he  declares,  (John  v.  19,  30,  86.)  "Verily, 
verily,  I  say  unto  you.  The  soti  can  do  nothing  of  him- 
self." "  /  can  of  mine  own  self  do  nothing."  "  The 
works,  which  the  Father  hath  given  me  to  finish,  the 
same  works  that  I  do,  bear  witness  of  me,  that  the  Father 
hath  sent  me."  And  to  his  desponding  Apostles  he  admi- 
nisters consolation  by  the  following'  account  of  his  divine 
authority;  (John  xiv.  10.)  "The  words,  that  I  speak 
unto  you,  I  speak  not  of  myself;  but  the  Father,  that 
dwelleth  in  me,  He  doeth  the  works." 


104 

To  these  clear  assertions  vre  may  atld  another  testimony^ 
still  more  solemn.  That  the  power,  by  which  Jesus  per- 
formed miracles,  did  not  belong  to  him  as  his  uncommuni- 
cated  and  inherent  possession,  is  ip.anit'est  from  his  prayer 
at  the  raising  of  Lazarus,  and  from  the  previous  address  of 
Martha.  John  xi.  21,  22.  "Then  said  Martha  unto 
Jesus,  "  Lord,  if  thou  hadst  been  here,  my  brother  had 
not  died  :  but  I  know,  that  even  now,  whatsoever  thou  ivilt 
ask  of  God,  God  nill  give  it  thee.^^  From  the  last 
words  we  may  conclude,  that  Martha  knew  it  to  be  the 
cusfom  of  Jesus  to  pray  to  God  for  the  accoaiplishment  of 
any  miracle,  which  he  wished  to  perform,  and  that  God 
always  granted  his  petition  by  performing  the  miracle 
through  hiin.  If  however  the  address  of  Martha  leaves  this 
matter  doubtful,  all  uncertainty  is  removed  by  what  we 
read  in  the  41st,  42d,  and  43d  verses ;  "  And  Jesus  lifted 
up  his  eyes  and  said,  '  Father,  I  thank  thee,  that  thou  hast 
heard  me ;  and  I  knew,  that  thou  hearest  me  always  ;  but 
because  of  the  people,  which  stand  by,  I  said  it,  that  they 
may  believe,  that  thou  hast  sent  me  :'  and,  when  he  had  thus 
spoken,  he  cried  with  a  loud  voice,  '  Lazarus,  come  forth.'  " 
This  passage  proves,  that  our  Saviour  never  performed 
any  miracle  without  a  prayer  to  God  the  Father,  either 
tacit  or  expressed  aloud,  in  which  he  acknowledged  him- 
self to  be  dependent  upon  him  for  power  to  perform  the 
miracle.  "  I  knew,  that  thou  hearest  me  always."  This 
implies  that  he  "always"  before  exhibiting  a  miracle, 
uttered  in  his  mind  a  prayer  to  God,  and  that  God  always 
acceded  to  his  prayer.  "  But  because  of  the  people,  which 
stand  by,  I  said  it,  that  they  may  believe,  that  thou  hast 
{<ent  me."  This  signifies,  that  at  that  time  he  uttered  his 
prayer  aloud,  in  order  that  the  spectators,  evidently  per- 
ceiving his  power  to  be  derived  from  heaven,  might  believe, 
that  he  was  the  authorized  ambassadour  of  God  sent  to 
declare  his  will  to  mankind. 


105 

With  the  account  of  the  raising  of  Lazarus  by  Christ  we 
aiay  compare  the  ac -oiint  of  the  raiding  of  Tabitha  by  the 
A.vjstle  P3ter.  We  are  told,  (Acts  ix.  40.)  that  Peter, 
having  sent  a\vay  the  people,  and  being  left  alone,  "  kneel- 
ed down  and  pray^ed,  and,  turning  him  to  the  body,  said, 
'Tabitha,  arise;'  and  she  opened  her  eyes,  and  when  she 
saw  Peter,  she  sat  up."  We  have  then  two  examples  of 
miracles  similar  in  their  nature.  They  were  also  performed 
in  the  same  manner,  each  in  consequence  of  a  prayer 
offered  up  to  the  supreme  God.  In  the  case  of  Peter  it 
will  be  admitted,  that  the  bare  performance  of  the  miracle 
was  far  from  proving  his  Divinity,  and  that  the  wai/,  in 
which  he  performed  it,  proved  him  to  be  dependent  upon 
God  for  Ihe  power  exhibited.  If  these  conclusions  be  just 
and  inevitable  in  the  case  of  Peter,  they  must  be  equally 
so  in  the  case  of  Christ.  The  prayer,  which  Jesus  offered 
up  to  God  the  Father  at  the  tomb  of  Lazarus,  proved  him 
to  be  dependent  upon  God  the  Falher  for  the  power,  by 
which  he  restored  his  friend  to  life  ;  and,  since  his  expres- 
sions imply,  that  be  never  performed  any  miracle  without  a 
similar  acknowledgment  of  dependence,  it  follows  from  this 
circumstance,  as  well  as  those  previously  noticed  under 
this  head,  that  the  power,  which  he  displayed  in  so  awful  a 
manner  during  his  publick  ministry,  was  not  inherent,  but 
derived. 

If  then  we  search  the  Scriptures  to  know,  whence  he 
had  his  mighty  works,  we  find  both  from  the  inferences 
deduced  by  all  who  saw  them,  and  from  his  own  express 
and  solemn  declarations,  that  he  did  not,  and  could  not, 
perform  them  by  any  power  belonging  originally  to  himself, 
but  that  they  were  wrought  by  the  power  of  God  the  Fa- 
ther, residing  in  him,  and  operating  through  him. 

III.  The  3d  period  of  our  Lord's  existence,  in  which  I 
proposed  To  consider  the  exercise  of  his  power,  is  that  sub- 

15 


Sequent  to  liis  asfensioii  into  heaven.  The  slate,  to  which 
he  has  been  exalted,  is  described  in  the  New  Testament 
in  the  most  elevaled  language,  but  is  uniformly  represented 
as  the  gift  and  the  appointment  of  a  superiour  Being,  name- 
ly, God  tlie  Father. 

In  the  first  place,  Jesiis  himself  gave  this  representation 
of  his  approaching  glory.  "Ye,"  said  he  to  his  Apostles, 
"  are  they,  who  have  continued  with  me  in  my  temptations  ; 
and  I  appoint  unto  you  a  kingdom,  as  my  Father  hath  ap- 
pointed V7ito  me."  Luke  xxii.  28,  29.  From  this  asser- 
tion it  is  clear,  that,  in  the  kingdom  here  spoken  of,  Christ 
is  a  minister,  subordinate  to  God  the  Father,  and  appointed 
by  him,  in  the  same  manner  as  the  Apostles  were  subordi- 
nate to,  and  appointed  by,  Christ.  This  agrees  with  the 
remark  of  the  Evangelist  John,  by  which  he  describes  the 
feelings  of  our  Lord  in  the  contemplation  of  his  sufferings 
and  of  his  consequent  glory  and  dominion  ;  "  Jesus  know- 
eth,  that  the  Father  had  given  all  things  into  his  hand, 
and  that  he  was  from  God,  and  went  to  God."  John  xiii.  3. 
In  the  immediate  prospect  of  his  death,  and  consideiing  it  as 
the  passage  to  his  glory,  "  he  lifted  up  his  eyes  to  heaven, 
and  said,  "  Father,  the  hour  is  come  ;  glorify  thy  son,  that 
thy  son  also  may  glorify  thee  ;  as  thou  hast  given  him 
power  over  all  Jlesh,  that  he  should  give  eternal  life  to  as 
many  as  thou  hast  given  him."  John  xvii.  1,  2.  The  last 
injunction,  which  he  gave  to  his  disciples,  the  most  splendid 
description,  which  he  ever  uttered,  of  his  future  glory  and 
dominion,  consisted  only  in  saying,  "  All  power  is  given 
unto  me  in  heaven  and  in  earth."  Mat.  xxviii.  18.  And 
in  the  book  of  Revelation,  (ch.  ii.  26",  27.)  where  he  is 
represented  "giving"  to  his  faithful  servants  ^^  power  over 
the  nations,''^  still  he  only  gives  that  which  he  had  received, 
"  Fjven,^'  says  he,  "  as  I  received  of  my  Father  J'* 


107 

Fn  the  book  of  Acts,  wliicli  contains  an  account  of  the 
various    miracles,    performed   by   the   Aposlles   in   conse- 
qaence  of  the  gift  of  the  holj   spirit   bestowed  upon  them, 
we  find  Ihem  constantly  teaching,  not  only  that  they  recei- 
ved their  miraculous  endowments  from  the  Lord  Jesus,  but 
that  he  received  the  power  of  conferring  those  endowments 
from  the  Father.     Peter,  in  the  name  of  the  Apostles,  thus 
explains  to  the   astonished  multitude  the  source  of  those 
extraordinary  powers,   with  which   they  were  gifted  on  the 
day  of  Pentecost.     "  This  Jesus,"  says  he,  after  speaking 
of  his  death,    "  hath  God   raised  up,  whereof  we  all  are 
witnesses  :  therefore,  being  by  the  right  hand  of  God  exalt- 
ed, and  having  received  of  the  Father  the  pro7nise  of  the 
holy  ghost,  he  hath  shed  forth  this,  which  ye  now  see  and 
hear."  Acts  ii.  32,  33.     A  tifile  after  he  says  to  the  Jews. 
*•  Therefore  let  all  tlie  house  of  I:biael  know  assuredly  that 
God  hath  made  that  same  Jesus,  whom  ye  have  crucified, 
both  Lord  and  Christ."  ver.  36.     In  like  manner  he  ac- 
counts for  his  ability  to  heal   a  lame  man  in   the  name  of 
Jiisus,  saying,  "  The  God  of  Abraham  and  of  Isaac  and  of 
Jacob,  the  God  of  our  fathers,  hath  glorified  his  servant 
Jesus  ;"    (Acts   iii.    13.)  and,   when    brought    before   the 
Jewish  Sanhedrim,  he   says,    "  The   God  of  our  fatiiers 
raised   up   Jesus,   whom  ye   slew    and  hanged  on  a  tree. 
Him  hath  God  exalted  with  his  right  hand  to  be  a  Prince 
and  a  Saviour."  Acts  v.  30,  31.     Thus  the  Apostles,  in 
the  course  of  their  preaching,  uniformly  asserted,   that   the 
power,  which  our  Lord  exercised  after  his  ascension  into 
heaven  by  conferring  upon  them  their  miraculous  gifts,  did 
not  originally  belong  to  him  in  his   own   nature,   but   was 
bestowed  upon  him  by  God  the  Father.     "From   the  Fa- 
ther" he  is  said  to  have  "  received  the  promise  of  the  holy 
spirit."     God  "  made  him  both  Lord  and  Christ,"  "  glori- 
fied" him,  and  "exalted  him  to  be  a  Prince  and  a  Saviour." 


108 

In  the  same  manner  the  Apostle  Paul  (Eph.  i.  19 — 22.) 
speaks  at  large  of  the  "mighty  power  of  God,  which  he 
wrought  in  Christ,  when  he  raised  nim  from  the  dead, 
and  set  him  at  his  own  right  hand  in  the  heavenly  places, 
far  above  all  principality  and  power  and  might  and  domin- 
ion, and  every  name  that  is  named,  not  only  in  this  world, 
but  also  in  that  which  is  to  come  ;  and  hath  put  all  things 
tinder  his  feet,  and  given  him  to  be  the  head  over  all  things 
to  the  church.^*  In  connexion  with  this  passage  I  shall 
quote  another  from  the  same  author,  which  agrees  with  it 
in  attributing  the  present  exaltation  of  our  Saviour  entirely 
to  the  will  and  appointment  of  God  the  Father.  Phil.  ii. 
9 — 11.  After  speaking  of  the  virtuous  humiliation  and 
obedience  of  Christ,  the  Apostle  says,  that,  as  the  reward 
of  his  obedience,  "  God  hath  highly  exalted  him,  and 
given  him  a  name,  which  is  above  every  name,  that  at  the 
name  of  Jesus  every  knee  should  bow,  of  things  in  heaven, 
and  things  in  earth,  and  things  under  the  earth,  and  that 
every  tongue  should  confess,  that  Jesus  Christ  is  Lord,  to 
the  glory  of  God  the  Father.^'  In  like  manner  the  author 
of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  asserts,  (ch.  i.  2.)  that 
"  God  hath  appointed  Jesus  heir  of  all  things  ;"  and  the 
Apostle  Peter  (1  Peter  i.  21.)  affirms,  that  "God  raised  up 
Christ  from  the  dead,  and  gave  him  glory.*'  These  pas- 
sages ascribe  to  Jesus  transcendent  glory  and  extensive 
dominion.  But  they  all  assert  in  the  most  clear  and  positive 
terms,  that  the  giver  of  that  glory,  the  fountain  of  that 
dominion,  is  the  Supreme  God,  the  Father,  and  they  contain 
no  intimation,  that  the  power  and  dignity  of  our  Saviour 
originate  in  any  respect  from  his  own  eternal  and  inherent 
perfection.  The  doctrine  of  these  passages  is,  that  "  God 
hath  highly  exalted  him  ;"  that  God  "hath  set  Jesus  at  his 
own  right  hand  in  the  heavenly  places;"  that  God  "hath 
put  all  things  under  his  feet  5"  that  God  "  hath  given  him 


109 

glory  and  a  name,  which  is  above  every  name  ;"  that  God 
«  bath  appointed  him  heir  of  all  things,"  and  "  made  him 
to  be  the  head  over  all  things  to  the  church." 

The  present  exalted  state  of  our  Saviour  is  in  many 
passages  of  the  New  Testament  described  by  saying,  that 
he  "stands,"  or  that  "he  sitteth  at  the  right  hand  of 
God."*  This  expression  is  evidently  figurative.  Its  sig- 
nificution  however  is  very  precise  and  determinate.  It 
denotes,  that  our  Lord  is  endowed  with  great  authority,  but 
that  he  derives  that  authority  from  God  the  Father,  and 
exercises  it  in  subjection  to  him.  There  is  not  in  the 
Bible  any  figure  of  speech  more  common  or  more  appro- 
priate than  that,  which  represents  the  sovereignty  of  God, 
as  the  moral  governor  of  mankind,  by  saying  that  he  sits 
upon  a  throne.  But  in  the  courts  of  eastern  monarchs  the 
person,  who  sat  or  stood  at  the  right  hand  of  the  sovereign, 
was  his  prime-minister,  who  was  appointed  by  the  monarch 
to  hold  the  next  rank  to  himself  in  administering  the  affairs 
of  his  government.  When  therefore  the  prophets  and  holy 
men  of  old  saw  in  vision,  as  was  the  case  with  the  martyr 
Stephen,  or  pictured  in  their  own  minds  by  the  power  of 
imagination,  the  one  God,  the  Father,  seated  upon  a  throne, 
and  his  son,  Jesus  Christ,  sitting  or  standing  at  his  right 
hand,  the  representation  implied,  that  Jesus  acted  in  sub- 
jection to  the  Father  as  Supreme,  and  that  he  was  appoint- 
ed by  the  Father  to  be,  under  himself,  the  head  of  his 
moral  administration.  It  denoted  therefore  in  Jesus  high 
and  extensive  power  relatively  to  men,  but  inferiority  rela- 
tively to  God. 

The  inferiority  of  Jesus  to  the  Father  in  his  present 
state  of  glory  is  asserted  without  a  figure  in  those  passages, 

*  Mat.  xxii.  44.  xxvi.  64.  Mark  xiv.  62.  xvi.  19,  20.  Luke  xxii.  69. 
Acts  ii.  33,  34.  v.  31.  vii.  55,  56.  Rom.  viii.  34.  Col.  iii.  1.  Heb.  j. 
3,  viii.  1.  X.  12.  xii.  2.     1  Peter  iii.  22. 


110 

which  speak  of  his  intercession.  Rom.  viii.  34.  "It  i« 
Christ  that  died,  yea  rather,  that  is  risen  again,  who  is  even 
at  the  right  hand  of  God,  who  also  makdh  intercession 
for  MS."  Heb.  vii.  25.  "  He  is  able  also  to  save  fhem  to 
the  uttermost  that  come  unto  God  by  him,  seeing  he  ever 
livefh  to  make  intercession  for  ihem.'^  It  is  in  the  nature 
of  things  impossible,  that  the  Supreme  God  can  either 
pray,  or  give  thanks,  or  intercede  ;  because  there  is  not  in 
the  universe  any  greater  being,  before  whom  he  can  appear 
as  a  suppliant  either  for  himself  or  others.  The  interces- 
sion of  Christ  therefore  in  his  exalted  state,  white  it  is 
adapted  to  raise  the  highest  sentiments  of  mingled  gratitude 
and  veneration  towards  him,  proves,  that  he  is  not  God, 
but  dependent  upon  the  Father  for  the  accomplishment  of 
his  desires. 

It  will  now  be  proper  to  consider  the  glorious  offices, 
which  all  Christians  expect  the  Lord  Jesus  to  execute,  of 
raising  the  dead  and  conducting  the  final  judgment  of  man- 
kind. Unitarians  assert,  that  Jesus  is  empowered  and 
ordained  to  fulfil  these  exalted  offices  by  the  only  true  God, 
the  Father.  Their  doctrine  is  established  by  tbe  tollowing 
passages.  John  v.  22.  "  The  Father  judgeth  no  man, 
but  hath  committed  all  judgment  nnto  the  Son.^^ — Ver. 
25 — 27.  "  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  the  hour  is  com- 
ing, and  now  is,  when  the  dead  shall  hear  the  voice  of  the 
Son  of  God,  and  they'  that  hear  shall  live;  for,  as  the 
Father  hath  life  in  himself,  so  hath  he  given  to  the  Son  to 
have  life  in  himself,  and  hath  given  him  authority  to  execute 
judgment  also,  because  he  is  the  son  of  man."  In  this 
passage  we  are  informed,  first,  that  Jesus  Christ  will  raise 
the  dead  ;  and,  secondly,  we  are  informed  of  tlie  reason^ 
why  he  will  display  such  stupendous  power,  viz.  *'  because 
the  Father  hath  given  it  to  him,  and  hath  also  given  him 
atithorilij  to  execute  judgment. ^^ 


Ill 

When  the  Apostle  Peter  explains  the  nature  and  design 
of  the  Gospel  to  the  devout  Cornelius,  he  thus  states  the 
commission,  which  had  been  given  to  the  Apostles  respect- 
ing the  chief  substance  of  their  preaching  ;  (Acts  x.  42.) 
"  He  commanded  us  to  preach  unto  the  people  and  to 
testifv,  that  it  is  he,  who  tvas  ordained  of  God  to  be  the 
judge  of  quick  and  dead.''  St.  Paul,  in  declaring  the 
great  truths  of  the  Christian  religion  to  the  Athenians, 
affirms,  (Acts  xvii.  31.)  that  God  "hath  appointed  a  dav,  in 
the  which  he  will  judge  the  world  in  righteousness  by  that 
man,  whom  he  hath  ordained,  whereof  he  hath  given  assu- 
rance onto  all  men,  in  that  he  hath  raised  him  from  the 
dead."  The  same  Apostle  asserts  in  his  Epistle  to  the 
Romans,  (ch.  ii.  16.)  that  "God  shall  judge  the  secrets  of 
men  bi/  Jesus  Christ  ;  properly  translated,  it  is,  "  through 
Jesus  Christ,'*  and  signifies  that  God  will  judge  mankind 
through  Jesus  Christ  as  a  subordinate  agent.  Precisely 
in  the  same  manner  he  limits  the  agency  of  Christ  in  raising 
the  dead;  (2  Cor.  iv.  14.)  "Knowing  that  he,  who  raised 
up  the  Lord  Jesus,  shall  raise  up  us  also  by  Jesus  ;"  here 
likewise  the  proper  translation  is  "  through  Jesus,"  re- 
presenting our  blessed  Lord  as  an  instrument,  employed  by 
the  Supreme  Being  to  effect  this  great  renovation.  These 
clear  and  decisive  passages  teach  us  how  to  understand 
those,  which  speak  of  the  exercise  of  Christ's  power  in 
raising  the  dead  and  of  his  authority  in  executing  judgment, 
without  either  denying  or  expressly  asserting,  that  such 
power  and  such  authority  were  committed  to  him  by  the 
Father,  and  that  in  the  exercise  of  them  he  was  only  a 
delegated  agent. 

I  close  the  evidence  for  the  derivation  of  Christ's  power 
and  his  inferiority  to  the  Father,  with  the  remarkable  lan- 
guage of  the  Apostle  Paul  in  his  first  Epistle  to  the  Corin 


ti' 


112 

thians;  (1  Cor.  xv.  24— 28.)  <'Then,  (that  is,  after  the 
general  resurrection)  cometh  the  end,  when  he  (Christ) 
shall  have  delivered  up  the  kingdom  to  God,  even  the 
Father,  when  he  shall  have  put  down  all  rule  and  all  au- 
thority and  power.  For  he  must  reign,  til;  He  hath  put  all 
enemies  under  his  feet.  The  last  enemy,  that  shall  be 
destroyed,  is  death.  For  *  He  hath  put  all  things  under  his 
feet.'  But  when  he  saith.  All  things  are  put  under  him,  it 
is  manifest,  that  He  is  excepted,  who  hath  put  all  things 
under  him.  And  when  all  things  shall  be  subdued  unto 
him,  then  shall  the  Son  also  himself  be  subject  unto  him, 
that  hath  put  all  things  under  him,  that  God  may  be 
all  in  all.''  The  Apostle  here  teaches,  not  only  that  all 
the  power,  at  present  exercised  by  our  Saviour,  is  conferred 
upon  him  by  God  the  Father,  who  is  said  to  have  "put  all 
things  under  his  feet,"  but  that,  when  the  great  and  benevo- 
lent purposes,  for  which  he  is  invested  with  that  power, 
have  been  fully  answered,  and  all  the  designs  of  his  media- 
torial office  finally  accomplished,  he  will  deliver  up  the 
kingdom  and  resign  the  authority  granted  to  him. 

I  have  now  produced,  or  referred  to,  every  passage  of 
the  New  Testament,  which  speaks  of  the  power  of  Christ.  1 
have  considered  the  exercise  of  his  power  in  three  distinct 
periods  of  his  existence  ;  first,  the  period,  preceding  his 
incarnation  ;  secondly,  the  period  of  his  ministry  upon  this 
earth  ;  and  thirdly,  the  period  subsequent  to  his  ascension 
into  heaven.  We  have  found  it  to  be  the  uniform  doctrine 
of  the  New  Testament,  that,  in  all  these  successive  states, 
he  is  inferiour  to  God  the  Father,  and  possesses  no  power  or 
authority,  but  by  derivation  from  the  Father.  If  therefore 
there  be  any  truth  in  Scripture,  or  any  intelligible  meaning 
in  the  words  of  Christ  and  his  Apostles,  the  Unitarian 
doctrine  is  now  fully  and  irrefragably  proved,   vis.  that  all 


113 

the  power,  by  which  our  Saviour  was  ever  distinguished, 
did  not  originally  belong  to  hin>  in  his  own  nature,  but  was 
given  to  him  by  the  only  true  God,  the  Father. 

Perhaps  I  may  be  blamed  for  degrading  the  character  of 
the  Saviour.  To  this  I  answer,  that  I  use  no  language  and 
make  no  assertion  concerning  him,  which  I  do  not  find  con- 
stantly employed  by  himself  and  his  apostles,  and  which 
does  not  appear  necessary  to  vindicate  the  unrivalled  glory, 
the  supreme,  underived,  and  independent  power,  of  the 
one  living  and  true  God,  who  was  and  who  is  and  who  is  to 
come,  the  Almighty. 


16 


114 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

as    THE    rSE    OF   THE    PHRASES    "  HOLT   SPIRIT,"    &C.     IS   THE   SACKB» 

SCRIPTURES. 

The   various  applications  of  the  word  "  spirit''  in  the 
New  Testament  have  been  viewed  by  learned  theologians, 
as  presenting  great  difficulties.     I    confess  with  respect  to 
myself,  that  I  do  not  clearly  understand   several  passages, 
in  which  this  term  occurs,  and  think  it  better  to  remain  in 
doubt  than  to   form  an  opinion   too  precipitately.     I  must 
therefore  remind  the  reader  to  exercise   his  own  judgment 
upon  what  I  shall  advance  in  this  as  well  as  in  every  other 
chapter  of  my  volume.     Notwithstanding  the  difficulty  of 
explaining  some   particular  passages,    (a  difficulty,    which 
oppresses  the  Trinitarians  as  much  as  their  opponents,)  I 
conceive,  that  the  doctrines,  which  I  shall  state  under  the 
three  following  heads,   are  fully  established,  and  that  the 
word  spirit   is  never  applied  by  the  Sacred  Writers,    as  it 
is  by  the  Orthodox  of  modern  times,  to  an  intelligent  being, 
distinct  from  God  the  Falher,  co-equal  and  co-eternal  with 
him,   and  like  him   possessed  in  an   infinite   degree  of  all 
natural  and  moral  perfections. 

I.  In  the  first  place,  there  is  reason  to  believe,  that  the 
phrases  '' Hoh/ Spirit,''  and  ''Spirit  of  God"  are  used 
in  the  Sacred  Scriptures  to  signify  the  One  True  God, 
THE  Father. 

It  was  the  object  of  the  three  first  Chapters  of  this  2d 
Part,  to  prove  those  two  leading  principles  of  the  Unitarian 
creed,  that  there  is  only  one  person  in  the  Godhead,  and 
that  that  one  person  is  the  Father.     I  now  remark,   that  in 


11!* 

various  passages  of  Scripture,  the  phrases  "  Holy  Spirit" 
and  "  Spirit  of  God"  are  only  other  names  for  the  same 
unrivalled  Being. 

That  this  should  be  the  case  is  perfectly  natural.  "God 
is  a  spirit,"  and  he  is  "  Holy  ;"  why  then  should  he  not  be 
called,  "  The  Holy  Spirit  r' 

It  is  very  common  in  Scripture  to  employ  "  the  spirit 
of  a  person'^  in  oider  to  denote  the  person  himself.  Thus 
St.  Paul  says  to  his  Christian  bretliren,  (1  Cor.  xvi.  17, 
18.)  "I  am  glad  of  the  coming  of  Stephanas,  and  Fortu- 
natus,  and  Achaicus  ; — for  they  have  refreshed  my  spirit 
and  yours  ;"  that  is,  "  they  have  refreshed  me  and  youJ" 
The  Epistle  of  Paul  to  the  Galatians  and  that  to  Philemon 
conclude  with  this  benediction  ;  "  The  grace  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  be  with  your  spirit.^'  Most  of  his  other 
epistles  however  conclude  thus;  "The  grace  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  be  with  you^  There  can  be  no  doubt,  that 
both  expressions  have  the  same  signification.  "  Your 
spirit''  means  the  same  with  "  You.'' 

Since  therefore  "  the  spirit  of  a  person""  is  a  phrase 
employed  to  denote  the  person  himself  "  The  spirit  of 
God"  may  naturally  mean  God  himself  In  the  following 
passage  this  periphrasis  is  employed  in  speaking  both  of 
man  and  of  God.  1  Cor.  ii.  11.  "  For  what  man  knoweth 
the  things  of  a  man,  save  the  spirit  of  man,  which  is  in  him  ? 
Even  so  the  things  of  God  knoweth  no  man,  but  the  spirit 
of  God."  The  meaning  of  the  verse  is  evidently  this; 
"As  no  one  is  acquainted  with  the  secret  purposes  of  a 
man,  except  the  man  himself  so  no  one  is  acquainted  with 
the  secret  purposes  of  God,  except  God  himself."  Thus 
the  Spirit  of  Man  signifies  the  Human  Mind  ;  and,  in 
like  manner,  the  Spirit  of  God  signifies  the  Divine  Mind. 
When  Elihu,  in  the  book  of  Job,  asserts,  (ch.  xxxiii.  4.) 
"  The  Spirit  of  God  hath  made  me,"  he  doubtless  means, 


116 

"  God  hath  matle  me."     In  the  139th  Psalm  the  omnipre- 
sence of  God  is  described  in   the   following   beautiful   and 
sublime  language  ;  (vcr.  7.)  "  Whither  shall  1  go  from  thy 
spirit  J*  or  whither  shall  I  tlee  from  thj   presence  ?"   (\er. 
8.)     "If  I  ascend  up  into  heaven,  thou  art  there  ;  if  I  make 
my  bed  in  hell,    behold  thou  art  there."     Here   it  may  be 
remarked,  that   '•'' thy  splriV^  ■a\u\  '■'■thy  preftnce'^  are  em- 
ployed in  the  former  verse,  as  equivalent  lo  the  single  word 
^Hhou''^  in  the  latter.     The  same  sense   would   have  been 
conveyed,  if  the  llrst  question  had  been,  "  Wiiilher  shall  I 
go  from   thee?^^    or,   if  the   last   verse   had   been,    "If  I 
ascend  up  into  heaven,  thy  spirit  is  there ;  if  I   make   my 
bed  in  hell,  behold,  thy  spirit  is   (here."     The   Spirit  of 
God  here  signifies   the  spiritual  and  intelligent  substance 
of  God.    The  Prophet  Isaiah  (Isa.  Ixiii.  10.)  thus  describes 
the  disobedience  of  the  Israelites,  and  the  consequent  dis- 
pleasure of  their   holy   God.      "  But    they    rebelled,  and 
vexed  his  holy  spirit ;  therefore  he  was  turned  to  be  their 
enemy,  and  he  fought  against  them."      The  holy  spirit  of 
God  is  employed  in  ihe  first  part  of  the  verse  to  denote  the 
same  being,  who  is  called  by  the  single  pronoun  "  He"  in 
the  latter  part,  and  the  Lord,  or  Jehovah,  in  many  places 
of  the   same  chapter.      These    examples   from    the   Old 
Testament  appear  sufficient  to  prove,  that  in  Scripture  lan- 
guage  the    expressions    "  Holy  Spirit^'    and   "  Spirit  of 
God'^  are  sometimes  used  to  signify  God  himself. 

I  shall  now  produce  all  the  passages  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, which  seem  (o  be  most  easily  and  naturally  explained 
upon  (his  principle,  taking  the  liberty  to  use  the  word 
"  Spirif^  for  (he  sake  of  uniformity  in  every  quotation, 
whether  Pneuma  be  so  translated  in  the  Common  Version, 
or  by  the  almost  obsolete  word  "  Ghost.^^ 

In  Acts  V.  3,  4.  we  are  informed  (ha(  Peter  addressed 
Ananias  in  the  following  terms;  "Ananias,  why  hath  Satan 


117 

filled  thine  hear!  to  lie  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  to  keep  back 
part  of  the  price  of  the  land  ?  Whiles  it  remained,  was  it 
nol  thine  own?  and,  after  it  was  sold,  was  it  not  in  thine 
own  power?  Why  hast  thou  conceived  this  thing  in  thine 
heart  ?  Thou  hast  not  lied  unto  men,  but  unto  God.^^ 
In  this  speech  of  the  Apostle,  lo  "lie  unto  the  Holy 
Sj>irjt,"  and  to  "lie  unto  God,"  appear  to  be  synonymous 
expressions.  Perhaps  it  may  be  proper  to  interpret  in  the 
sa.ae  manner  the  expression  of  Peter  in  the  9lh  verse, 
*'  How  is  it,  that  ye  have  agreed  together  to  tempt  the 
Spirit  of  the  Lord  .^^'  We  may  consider  this  phrase  as 
p^raliel  io  the  expressions  " /o  tempt  God'''  and  " /u  tempt 
the  Lord,""  which  we  find  in  other  parts  of  Scripture. 

Tiie  following  passages  resemble  one  another  in  repre- 
senting the  Holy  Spirit  as  saying  or  speaking  words, 
which  were  uttered  through  Prophets  under  the  Old  Testa- 
ment dispensation.  Acts  i.  16.  "This  Scripture  must 
needs  have  been  fulfilled,  which  the  Holy  Spirit  by  (through) 
the  mouth  of  David  spake  before  concerning  Judas."  Acts 
XXV iii.  25.  "  Well  spake  the  Holy  Spirit  by  (through) 
Esaias  the  Prophet  unto  our  fathers,  saying,  '  Go  unto 
this  people,'  "  &c.  Heb.  iii.  7.  "As  the  Holy  Spirit  sailh, 
*  To-day  if  ye  will  hear  his  voice,'  "  &c.  Heb.  x.  15,  16. 
"  The  Holy  Spirit  also  is  a  witness  to  us  ;  for,  after  he  had 
said  before,  '  This  is  the  covenant  that  I  will  make,'"  &c. 
If  we  compare  these  passages  with  numerous  others,  in 
which  it  is  asserted  of  a  Scripture,  that  God,  or  thk 
Lord,  spake  it  through  the  Prophet,  we  shall  see  reason  to 
believe,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  in  these  instances  another 
name  for  God.  In  like  manner,  (Acts  xxi.  1 1.)  the  Prophet 
Agabus  introduces  a  communication,  supernaturally  sug- 
gested to  his  mind,  with  the  expression,  "  Thus  saith  the 
Holy  Spirit,^'  which  appears  exactly  parallel  to  the  expres- 
iion  often  used  by  other  Prophets,  "  Thus  sailh  God.'^ 


118 

In  the  above  mentioned  cases,  the  suggestions  of  the 
Spirit  were  uttered  aloud  by  the  Prophet,  or  commitled  by 
liim  to  writing,  he  serving  as  the  organ  to  publish  the 
thoughts  of  the  Divinity.  In  many  other  cases,  a  purpose  or 
sentiment  was  suggested  to  a  Prophet  merely  for  the  direc- 
tion of  his  own  conduct.  The  language  of  the  Scriptures 
in  such  instances  commonly  is,  that  God  speaks  to  him,  not 
that  God  speaks  through  him  to  others.  We  find  in  the 
New  Testament  several  examples  of  this  kind,  in  which  the 
Holy  !Spirit  is  said  to  speak,  and  from  a  comparison  of 
these  with  the  other  cases  of  supernatural,  but  silent,  sug- 
gestion, in  which  God  is  said  to  speak,  I  think  it  probable, 
that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  used  in  these  passages  as  another 
name  for  the  One  True  God.  The  passages  I  allude  to 
are  the  following  :  Acts  viii.  29.  Then  the  Spirit  said 
unto  Philip,  *'  Go  near,  and  join  thyself  to  this  chariot." 
Acts  X.  19.  "  While  Peter  thought  on  the  vision,  the 
Spirit  said  vnto  him,  "Behold,  three  men  seek  thee." 
xi.  11,  12.  "  TJiere  were  three  men,  already  come  into  the 
house  where  I  was,  sent  from  Cwsarea  unto  me,  and  the 
Spirit  bade  me  go  with  them,  nothing  doubting."  xiii. 
2 — 4.  "  As  they  ministered  to  the  Lord,  and  fasted,  Ihe 
Holy  Spirit  said,  "  Separate  me  Barnabas  and  Saul  for 
the  '. vork,  whereunto  I  have  called  them." — "  So  tl;cy, 
being  sent  forth  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  departed  unto  Seieu- 
cia."  XX.  23.  "  Save  that  ihe  Holy  Spirit  witnesseth  in 
every  city,  saying,  that  bonds  and  afflictions  abide  me." 
1  Tim.  iv.  1.  "  Now  the  Spirit  speakelh  expressly,  that 
in  the  latter  times  some  shall  depart  from  the  faith."  In 
each  of  these  cases  a  sentiment  or  an  action  is  suggested  to 
ihe  mind  of  the  inspiied  person,  and  the  words,  expres- 
sive of  that  sentiment  or  action,  are  also  suggested  by 
the  same  extraordiiiarv  influence.  The  obviotis  wav  of 
denoting  the  origin  oi  such  ideas  in  the  mind,  is  to  say,  that 


119 

God  speaks  these  things  to  the  person  inspired.     In  the. 
exainjiles   before  us   it   is  said,    that  '^  the  Holy  Spirit^'* 
meaning  God,  "  spake,"   "  bid,"  or  "  witnessed." 

The  other  examples,  in  which  "the  Holy  Spirit"  appears 
io  be  but  another  name  for  the  Father,  are  the  follow- 
?hg.  The  reader  will  find  upon  examination,  that,  if  in- 
stead of  this  phrase  he  substitutes  the  word  "  Godj'^  the 
sense  will  be  complete,  and  the  language  conformable  to  the 
usual  style  of  the  Scriptures.  Luke  ii.  26.  Acts  xv.  28. 
XX.  28.  1  Cor.  ii.  11  —  14.  Eph.  iv.  30.  Heb.  ix.  8. 
and  especially,  1  Cor.  xii.  6 — 1 1,  where  the  Apostle,  speak- 
ing of  the  various  supernatural  endowments  of  the  first 
Christians,  says,  that  "  the  same  God  worketh  all  in  all," 
and  shortly  after,  "  But  ail  these  worketh  that  one  and 
the  self-same  Spirit,  dividing  unto  every  man  severally 
<ts  he  iviliy 

When  the  names  "  Holy  Spirit"  and  «  Spirit  of  God" 
are  used  to  denote  the  one  Supreme  Deity,  it  is  probable, 
that  they  are  to  be  understood  as  particularly  referring  to 
his  extraordinary  influences  either  upon  the  physical  or  the 
moral  world.  With  respect  to  all  these  passages  I  have 
however  expressed  myself  with  hesitation,  because  to  some 
it  may  appear  more  proper  to  explain  them  under  the 
third  head,  namely,  as  personifications  of  the  Divine  in- 
fluence. When  I  come  to  that  branch  of  the  subject,  1 
shall  again  briefly  notice  them.     I  now  observe, 

II.  Secondly,  that  the  phrases  "Holy  Spirit"  and 
"Spirit  of  God"  are  used  in  the  Scriptures  to  denote  the 
supernatural  influence  of  God,  or,  in  other  words,  Inspira- 
tion with  the  gifts  and  powers  attending  it. 

This  application  of  the  expressions  is  as  natural  as  the 
use  of  them  already  mentioned.  The  original  meaning  of 
the  Greek  word  Pxeuma,  translated  Spirit,  is  a  Blowing, 
or  a  Breathing.     Hence  it  is  employed  by  a  simple  and 


120 

•bvious  tninsilion  to  denote  a  Divine  Afflatus,  Inspiration, 
or  Influence.  Nay,  these  words  correspond  to  Pnlu.ma  not 
only  in  their  common  meaning,  but  also  in  their  etymology. 
An  Afflatus  is  a  Blowing  to  any  thing;  an  Inspiration  is 
a  Breathing  into  ;  an  Influence  is  a  Flowing  into.  The 
most  exact  and  literal  sense  of  the  phrase  "  Spirit  of  God" 
is  therefore  the  Inspiration  of  God. 

The  proper  meaning  of  Pneuma  is  illustrated  by  the 
account,  given  in  the  Go^^pel  of  John,  of  the  manner,  in 
which  Jesus  by  the  appointment  of  God  communicated  su-  j 
pernatural  powers  to  his  disciples.  John  xx.  21,  22.  "  Then  ; 
said  Jesus  to  them  again,  '  Peace  be  unio  you;  as  my  J 
Father  hath  sent  me,  even  so  send  I  you.'  And,  when  he  • 
had  said  this,  he  breathed  on  them,  and  saith  unto  them,  j 
'  Receive  ye  the  holy  spirit.^  The  correct  translation  of  the  I 
last  words  is,  "  Receire  ye  the  holy  breathing.'*  This  I 
explains  the  intention  of  the  act  of  breathing,  or  (as  the  1 
verb  tfx<f>vr!ta,  more  properly  signifies)  bloning,  upon  the  I 
disciples,  which  was  to  afford  an  external  sensible  symbol  j 
of  the  passage  of  energies,  powers,  and  influences,  froiii  i 
Jesus  to  them.  5 

These  observations  may  illustrate  the  fact,  that  among  all  ; 
the  derivative  applications  of  the  term  Pneuma,  the  use  of  j 
it  to  signify  the  extraordinary  communication  of  knowledge  ; 
and  power  is  perhaps  the  most  simple,  easy,  and  natural.  ■ 

The  instances  of  the  use  of  the  word  *'  Spirit"  in  this  j 
sense  are  very  frequent  in  the  Old  Testament.'  See,  for  j 
example,  Gen.  xli.  38,  39.  Ex.  xxxi.  3.  xxxv.  31.  Num.  | 
xi.  ir,  25,  2G,  29.  xxiv.  2.  Dan.  v.  11,  12.  But  it  will  I 
be  desirable,  for  the  sa'ie  of  brevity,  to  consider  its  occur-  ^ 
rence  in  the  New  Testament  only,  and  to  divide  tlie  exam- 
ples of  its  application  in  this  sense  into  dislinct  classes.  ] 

1.  In  various  passages  of  the  Christian  Scriptures,  a  per-  ^ 
son  is  said  to  be  "  filled  with  the  holy  spirit,"  or  "  full  of     , 


121 

the  holy  spu-it."  See  Luke  i.  15,  41,  67.  iv.  1.  Acts  ii.  4, 
iv.  3,31.  vi.  3,5.  vii.  55.  ix.  17.  xi.  24.  xiii.  9,  52.  Eph.  v.  18. 
To  say,  Ihat  any  one  was  ''JiUed  with  God,''  or  ''full  ofani/ 
persoiiy"  would  evidently  be  a  strange  and  unualural  ex- 
pression. Btif  what  places  it  beyond  a  doubt,  that  the  holy 
spirit  means  in  these  passages  only  powers,  gifts,  and  in- 
fluences, is,  that  in  the  same  Scriptures  the  terms  "filled" 
and  "  tuii"  are  repeatedly  applied  to  denote  the  existence 
of  mere  qualities:  and,  as  all  ihe  above  j)assages  except 
one  are  cited  from  St.  Luke,  so  the  application  of  the  terms 
"  filled"  and  "full"  to  other  qualities  is  particularly  fre- 
quent in  tlie  histories  of  the  same  author,  which  circumstance 
enables  us  to  apply  Mr.  Wardlaw's  excellent  rule,  (p.  37.) 
"  that  a  writer  is  the  best  interpreter  of  his  own  phraseology." 

We  find  these  terms  applied  to  denote  properties,  either 
good  or  had.  Jesus  Christ  is  described  as  "full  of  grace 
and  truth  ;"  John  i.  14.  Persons  are  said  to  have  been 
"filled  witn  wisdom;"  Luke  ii.  40.  "filled  with  kiiotv- 
ledoe;''  Rom.  xv.  14.  Col.  i.  9.  "  filled  with  jo^';"  Acts  ii. 
28.  Rom.  XV.  13.  2  Tim.  i.  4.  "  filled  with  comfort;''  2  Cor. 
vii.  4.  "  filled  w'lih  the  fruits  of  ri^hteoumess  ;"  Phil.  i.  11. 
"  full  of  goodness  ;"  Rom.  xv.  14.  "  full  of  good  works  and 
alms-deeds  ;"  Acts  ix.  36.  Men  are  described  as  "  filled 
Vf'ith  wrath, fear,  madness,  wonder  and  amazement,  indig- 
nation and  envy,  Luke  iv.  28.  v.  26.  vi.  11.  Acts  iii.  lO. 
V.  17.  xiii.  45.  xix.  28.  One  man  is  said  to  have  been  "  full 
oi  leprosy,"  Luke  v.  12.  and  another  "full  of  all  subtilty 
and  all  mischief;"  Acts  xiii.  10. 

The  use  of  the  phrase  "  holy  spirit"  in  connexion  with 
the  adjective  ^^  full"  is  further  elucidated  by  its  occurrence 
in  conjunction  with  other  words  in  the  same  clause  of  a  sen- 
tence, where  persons  are  said  to  be  full  of  the  holy  spirit 
AND  of  some  other  quality.     Let  Ihe  reader  consult  the  6th 

chapter  of  Acts.     He  will  find  in  the  3d  verse,  that  the 

17 


122 

twelve  Apostles  direct  fiie  discij)Ies  "  to  look  out  among 
them  seven  men  of  lionest  report ,  f nil  of  the  holy  spii'it  and 
WISD031."  In  ver.  5.  Stephen,  one  of  the  seven  chosen,  is 
described  as  '•  a  man  full  of  faith  and  of  the  holy  spirit.'* 
In  ver.  8.  the  same  ideas  are  conveyed,  with  a  slight  variety 
of  expression,  by  saying,  that  "  Stephen, /if//  of  faith 
'  AiVD  POWER,  did  grc:it  wonders  and  miracles  among  the  peo- 
ple." Here  the  word  ^^  power'''  seems  to  be  used  as  synony- 
mous to  the  expression  *' /to/*/ sp/ri/.''  In  ver.  10.  it  is 
added,  that  the  Jews  "  were  not  able  to  resist  the  wisdom 
AND  the  spirit,  by  which  he  spake."  "  The  wisdom  and 
the  spirit"  therefore  were  both  properties,  and  were  both 
resisted  as  properties.  In  like  manner,  (Acts  xi.  24.)  Bar- 
nabas is  said  to  have  been  "  full  of  the  holy  spirit  and  of 
faith  ;"  and,  (Acts  xiii.  52.)  we  are  told,  that  "  the  dis- 
ciples were  filled  with  joy  and  with  the  holy  spirit.'' 

From  these  considerations  it  is  indisputable,  that,  when 
any  one  is  in  Scripture  affirmed  to  be  full  of,  or  filled  with, 
theholy  spirit,  the  idea  of  the  personality  of  thatiioly  spirit  is 
entirely  excluded.  It  denotes  only  gwa/i/tes,  or  s/rt/eso/mmt?. 

2.  In  the  following  passages,  persons  aie  said  to  receive 
the  holy  spirit,  John  vii.  39.  xx.  22.  Acts  ii.  38.  viii.  15, 
17,  19.  X.  47.  xix.  2.  1  Cor.  ii.  12.  2  Cor.  xi.  4.  Gal.  iii.  2, 
14.  To  receive  a  divine  person  is  an  idea,  which  cannot  en- 
ter the  mind.  But  to  receive  a  power,  a  disposition,  an 
affection,  is  a  nnttiral  and  intelligible  phrase. 

One  of  the  instances,  here  referred  to,  merits  a  particular 
consideration.  Acts  xix.  2.  When  Paul  asked  the  disciples 
al  Ephesns,  "  Have  you  received  the  holy  spirit,  since  ye 
believed  ?"  They  replied,  "  We  have  not  so  much  as  heard, 
whether  there  be  any  holy  spirit."  They  evidently  meant, 
that  they  had  not  been  informed  of  the  communication  of 
miraculous  gifts  and  powtrs.  For  of  the  existence  of  God 
they  could  not  be  ignorant. 


123 

As  in  this  class  of  passages  the  holy  spirit  is  spoken  of  as 
*'  receiveil,"  so 

.3.  !ji  the  following  instances,  it  is  asserted  to  have  been 
"giceti:^'  liuke  xi.  13.  John  iii.  34.  Acts  viii.  IC.  xi.  17. 
XV.  8.  Rom.  V.  5.  2  Cor.  i.  22.  v.  5.  1  Thes.  iv.  8.  1  John 
iii.  24.  iv.  13. 

In  the  lirst  of  these  passages,  from  the  Gospel  of  Luke, 
the  wonis  of  Jesus  to  his  disciples  are,  "  If  ye  then,  being 
ev'j,  know  how  to  give  good  gifts  unto  your  children,  how 
much  more  shall  your  heavenly  Father  give  the  holy  spirit 
to  ihem,  that  ask  him  ?"  In  the  parallel  passage  of  the  Gos- 
pel of  Matthew,  (Mat.  vii.  11.)  the  last  clause  is  thus  varied; 
"Hovv  much  more  shall  your  Father,  which  is  in  heaven, 
give  good  things  to  them  that  ask  him  ?"  The  holy  spirit 
therefore  consisted  of  "  good  gifts,"  or  "  good  things." 

Tne  second  of  the  passages,  here  cited,  speaks  of  the 
spirit  as  given  hy  measure;  which  not  only  shows,  that  it 
was  a  gift,  but  that  it  might  be  imparted  in  various  degrees. 
It  must  therefore  signify  Divine  inspiration,  of  which  some 
have  had  one  measure,  and  some  another. 

In  Acts  xi.  17.  the  Apostle  Peter  expressly  calls  the  holy 
spirit  a  gift.  "  Forasmuch  as  God,"  says  he,  "gore  thew 
the  like  gift.'' 

4.  A  fourth  class  of  passages  consists  of  those  in  which 
the  holy  spirit  is  figuratively  represented  as  something  show- 
ered down  upon  the  favoured  individuals. 

In  Acts  ii.  If,  18.  God  is  said  to  "  poiir  out  of  his  spirit 
upon  all  flesh  ;"  and,  in  Acts  x.  45.  the  expression  is,  that 
"  on  the  Gentiks  was  poured  07it  the  gift  of  theholy  spirit.'" 
In  his  Epistle  to  Titus,  (ch.  iii.  5.)  Paul  speaks  of  "  the  hoiy 
spirit,  which  God  hath  shed  on  us  abundantly.''  That  "  (he 
holy  spirit"  is  here  intended  to  iienole  dispositions  and  in- 
fiuences,  is  manifest,  not  only  from  the  use  of  the  word  shed, 
which  could  not  be  applied  to  9.  person,  and  from  the  abun- 


124 

dance  of  the  gifts  bestowed^  but  also  from  the  application  of 
the  same  phrase  bv  this  author  in  speaking  of  the  "  love  of 
God."  Rom.  V.  5.  "  The  love  of  God,"  as  he  beaulifulij 
expresses  himself,  "  is  shed  abroad  in  our  hearts."  If  the 
love  of  God  can  be  shed,  or  poured  out,  upon  a  man,  so  may 
also  the  other  talents  and  affections,  of  which  the  holy  spirit 
consisted.  The  Apostle  Peler  also  (Acts  ii.  'S3.)  explains 
the  extraordinary  appearances  of  the  day  of  Pentecost  by 
saying  to  the  assembled  multitude,  "  Jesus,  having  rereived 
of  the  Father  the  promise  of  the  holy  spiii,  hath  shed  forth 
fhis^  ivhich  ye  now  see  and  hearJ'^  What  did  the  persons 
present  see  and  hear!*  They  saw  in  the  Apostles  the  dis- 
play of  sudden  and  supernatural  knowledge;  they  heard 
languages  before  unknown  <o  those,  who  used  them.  In  these 
qualifications  therefore  consisted  the  holy  spirit,  which  on 
that  memorable  day  was  showered  upon  the  Apostles. 

The  figure  is  the  same,  where  the  holy   spirit  is   said  to 
fall  vpon,  (Acts  viii.   16.  x.  44.  xi.  15.)  or  to  come  npoUf 
(Acts  i.  8.  xix.  6.)  the  persons  inspired. 

The  expression,  to  be  baptised  with  the  holy  spirit,  de- 
notes in  like  manner  the  copious  effusion  of  divine  gifts  and 
influences  ;  Mat.  iii.  11.  Mark  i.  8.  Luke  iii.  16.  John  i.  33. 
Acts  i.  5.  xi.  16.  and  the  same  figure  is  employed  by  the 
Apostle  Peter,  when  he  asserts,  (Acts  x.  38.)  that  "  God 
anointed  Jesus  of  Nazareth  with  the  holy  spirit  and  with 
power^  The  ancient  method  of  anointing  an)ong  the  He- 
brews was  by  pouring;  oil,  the  emblem  of  richness  and  lux- 
uriance, upon  the  head  of  him,  who  was  elected  to  any  civil 
or  religious  offic^.  The  effusion  of  oil  was,  I  presimie,  in- 
tended as  a  visible  symbol  of  the  effusion  of  the  dispositions 
and  talents,  included  under  the  term  "holy  spirit." 

To  the  same  class  of  expresisions  we  may  refer  the  lan- 
guage of  Paul,  1  Cor.  xii.  13.)  where,  having  observed,  (hat 
Christians  are  all  baptised  by  one  spirit  into  one  bod} ,  he 
sidds,  that  all  have  been  made  "  to  drink  into  one  spirit." 


125 

5.  In  several  passasjes  of  the  epistles  of  Paul,   the  holy 
•pit  it  is  spoken  of  as  divelling  in  inspired  men. 

The  same  Apostle  speaics  oC  faith,''  (2  Tim.  i.  5.)  of 
the  ''word  of  Christ,''  (Col.  iii.  16.)  and  of  "sm,"  (Rom.  vii. 
17,  20.)  as  dwelling  in  persons ;  which  proves  that  the 
phrase  is  used  concerning  gifts  and  dispositions.  Alihough 
therefore  the  other  interpretations  might  be  chosen,  (see  1 
John  iv.  12,  16.)  if  (here  were  any  occasion  ior  it,  we  may 
properly  understand  the  phrases,  "  holy  spii  il"  and  "  spirit 
of  ^lod"  in  the  following  passages,  as  denoting  the  gracious 
ipfneuces  of  God,  rather  than  God  himself.  "  Ye  are  not  in 
the  flesh,  but  in  the  spirit,  if  so  be,  that  the  spirit  of  God 
dwell  in  you.  Rom.  viii.  9.  See  also  veise  11.  "  Know  ye 
not,  that  ye  are  I  he  temple  of  God,  and  that  the  spirit  of 
God  divelleth  in  you;"  1  Cor.  iii.  16.  "  That  good  thing, 
■which  was  committed  unto  thee,  keep  })y  the  holy  spiiil, 
which  dwelleth  in  ns  ;"  2  Tim.  i.  14.  In  this  last  passage, 
"  the  holy  spirit"  must  signify  powers  and  dispositionSy 
because  Timothy  is  exhorted  to  use  them  as  instruments,  by 
means  of  which  he  may  keep  secure  his  Christian  privileges 
and  advantages. 

6.  I  bring  into  a  6fh  class  those  passages,  in  which  the 
spirit  is  represented  inciting  any  one  to  go  from  place  to 
place. 

"  Then  was  Jesus  led  up  of  the  spirit  into  the  wilder-, 
ness;"  Mat.  iv.  1.  "  And  immediately  the  spirit  driveth 
him  into  the  wilderness;"  Maik  i.  12.  "  Jesus,  being  full 
of  the  holy  spirit,  returned  from  Jordan,  and  was  led  by  the 
spirit  into  the  wilderness;"  Luke  iv.  1.  "  He  came  by  the 
spirit  into  the  temple  ;"  Luke  ii-  27.  "  The  spirit  of  the 
Lord  caught  away  Philip;"  Acts  viii.  39.  "As  many  as 
are  led  by  the  spirit  of  God,  they  are  the  sons  of  God  ;" 
Rom.  viii.  14.  "If  ye  be  led  bj/  Ihespirit,  ye  are  not  under 
the  law;"  Gal.  v.  18. 


126 

The  extraordinary  influence  of  God  upon  man  is  often 
called  an  Iinpuhe,  because  it  drives  or  impels  the  person, 
who  is  subject  to  it ;  and  nothing  is  more  common  than  to 
speak  of  ourselves  as  led  by  particular  views,  motives,  and 
dispositions.  If  therefore  we  understand  the  term  spirit  to 
denote  gifts,  affections,  and  energies,  these  expressions  are 
suited  to  the  usual  forms  of  human  speech. 

As  the  first  Christians  were  incited  by  the  holy  spirit  to 
go  from  place  to  place,  we  find  that  the  same  influence 
occasionally  restrained  them.  For  it  is  said,  (Acts  xvi.  6, 
7.)  that  Paul  and  Timothy  "  were  forbidden  of  the  holy 
spirit  to  preach  the  word  in  Asia,"  or  more  properly,  "  were 
restrained  by  the  holy  spirit  from  preaching  the  word  in 
A.^ia,"  and  that  "they  assayed  to  go  into  Bithynia,  but  iht 
spirit  suffered  them  notJ'^ 

7.  Under  a  Tth  head  I  bring  the  remaining  passages,  in 
■  which  "  the  holy  spirit,"  or  "  the  spirit  of  God,"  appears  to 
me  to  signify  Divine  Inspiration  with  the  gifts  and  powers 
attending  it.  I  shall  leave  the  diligent  reader  to  examine 
them  particularly  for  himself.  He  will  in  general  find,  that 
the  sense  will  be  clear,  and  the  language  natural,  if  instead 
of  these  phrases  he  substitutes  the  synonymous  expressions, 
Divine  Inspiration,  or  Injinence  of  God. 

Mat.  i.  18,  20.  iii.  16.  xii.  18,  31,  82.  xxii.  43.  Mark  i. 
10.  iii.  29.  xii.  36.  Luke  i.  35.  ii.  25.  iii.  22.  iv.  14,  18.  xii. 
10.  John  i.  32,  33.  iii.  5,  6.  Acts  i.  2.  ii.  4.  ix.  31.  xi.  28. 
xix.  21.  XX.  22.  xxi.  4.  Rom.  i.  4.  viii.  23,  26.  ix.  1.  xiv. 
17.  XV.  13,16,19.  1  Cor.  ii.  4.  vi.  11.  vii.  40.  xii.  3.  2  Cor. 
iii.  3,  18.  vi.  6.  xiii.  14.  Gal.  v.  16,  17,  22,  25.  Eph.  i.  13. 
ii.  18.  iii.  5,  16.  vi.  18.  Phil.  i.  19.  ii.  1.  Col.  i.  8.  1  Thes. 
i.  5,  6.  V.  19.  2  Thes.  ii.  13.  1  Tim.  iii.  16.  Heb.  ii.  4.  x. 
29.  1  Peter  i.  2,  12,  22.  iv.  14.  2  Peter  i.  21.  .Fude  19,  20. 
Rev.  i.  10.  iv.  2.  xvii.  3.  xxi.  10. 


127 

1  might  have  drawn  out  this  list  to  a  greater  length,  if  I 
had  not  been  desirous  of  omitting  all  the  passages,  the 
inferpietation  of  which  was  difficult  or  doubtful. 

I  shall  conclude  this  part  of  the  subject  with  considering 
four  passages,  two  of  which  are  parallel  to,  and  explain,  the 
others. 

The  Evangelist  Luke  relates  a  most  interesting  conver- 
sation, in  which  our  Saviour  refutes  the  charge,  that  he 
healed  the  demoniacks  by  intercourse  with  Beelzebub.  He 
uses  these  words  ;  "  But  if  I  with  the  finger  of  God  cast 
out  devils,  no  doubt  the  kingdom  of  God  is  come  upon 
you  :"  Luke  xi.  20.  What  are  we  to  understand  by  "  the 
finger  of  God  ?"  Undoubtedly  the  operation,  infiuence,  or 
communicated  energy,  of  God.  Let  us  then  turn  to  the 
parallel  passage  in  the  Gospel  of  Matthew.  "  But,  if  I 
cast  out  devik  by  the  spirit  of  God,  then  the  kingdom  of 
God  is  come  unto  you."  Mat.  xii.  28.  Every  one,  who 
believes,  that  the  meaning  of  Jesus  is  accurately  reported 
by  both  the  Evangelists,  will  allow,  that  "  the  spirit  of  God" 
here  signifies  the  same  as  "  the  finger  of  God,"  that  is,  the 
imparted  energy  of  God. 

St.  Luke  records  the  following  address,  delivered  by 
Jesus  to  his  disciples  immediately  before  his  ascension  into 
heaven  ;  "  Behold,  I  send  the  promise  of  my  Father  upon 
you  ;  but  tarry  ye  in  the  city,  until  ye  be  endued  with 
power  from  on  high  y  Lukexxiv.  49.  But  the  Evangelist, 
at  the  commencement  of  the  book  of  Acts,  relates  the  same 
promise  of  Jesus  more  largely  in  the  following  terms  ; 
"  Being  assembled  together  with  them,  he  commanded  them, 
that  they  should  not  depart  from  Jerusalein,  but  wait  for 
the  promise  of  the  Father,  "  which,"  saith  he,  "  ye  have 
beard  of  me.  For  John  truly  baptized  with  water  ;  but  ye 
shall  be  baptised  with  the  holy  spirit  not  many  days 
hence."  Acts  i.  4,  5.     From  the  comparison  of  these  two 


128 

passages  it  is  evident,  that  "  to  be  baptised  with  the  holy 
spirit"  was  precisely  the  same  thing  as  "to  be  eiMJiiedwah 
power  from  on  high." 

III.  I  now  observe,  in  the  third  place,  thai  the  super- 
natural influence  of  God  is  sometimes  personified  ;  ihat  is, 
it  is  spoken  of,  as  if  it  were  a  person  or  inteliigenf  being. 

Personification  is  a  common  figure  in  all  larigoages,  but 
is  in  none  so  frequent  as  in  those  of  the  East.  Hence 
almost  all  the  common  events  and  conditions  of  human  life, 
and  almost  every  power  and  disposition  of  the  human  mind 
is  personified  in  the  holy  Scriptures.  Considering  there- 
fore the  very  frequent  mention  of  the  Influence  of  God  in 
the  writings  of  the  New  Testament,  it  would  have  been 
truly  surprising,  if  this  alfection  had  not  been  occasionally 
described  as  possessing  personal  properties  :  and,  if  we 
examine  the  passages,  in  which  it  is  so  represented,  the 
figme  will  probably  appear  in  no  instance  forced  and  un- 
natural, even  to  the  ears  of  those,  who  are  accustomed  to 
the  plainer  diction  of  western  countries. 

Acts  v.  32.  The  Apostle  Peter,  after  speaking  before 
the  Jewish  council  of  tiie  death,  resurrection,  and  exalta- 
tion, of  Jesus,  states  in  the  following  terms  the  evidence,  by 
which  the  reality  of  these  facts  was  established.  "  We 
are  his  witnesses  of  these  things,  and  so  is  also  the  holy 
spirit,  which  God  ha'h  given  to  them  that  obey  him  ;" 
that  is,  The  Apostles  were  witnesses  of  facts,  which  they 
knew  in  consequence  of  their  attendance  upon  Jesus  during 
his  ministry,  and  also  the  miracles,  which  God  enabled 
them  to  perform,  were  witnesses  of  the  truth  of  their  asser- 
tions'. That,  in  this  passage,  "  the  holy  spirit"  does  not 
mean  God,  or  any  person,  is  evident,  because  it  is  describ- 
ed as  given  by  God.  The  way,  in  which  the  miraculous 
endowments  of  the  Apostles  bore  witness  to  their  doctrine, 
is  illustrated  by  the  following  assertions  of  Jesus    Christ 


129 

birRself :  "  The  works  which  (he  Father  hath  given  me  t« 
finish,  the  same  works  that  I  do  bear  jvitness  of  me,  that  the 
Fafher  halh  sent  me;"  John  v.  3G.  "  The  works,  (hat  I 
do  in  my  Father's  name,  they  bear  witness  of  me  ;"  John 
X.  25.  "  If  I  do  not  (he  works  of  my  Father,  believe  me 
not  ;  but,  if  I  do,  though  ye  believe  not  me,  believe  the 
works;''  ver.  37,38.  In  (hese  passage?),  as  well  as  in  (lie 
address  of  Peter,  miracles  are  personified,  and  appealed  lo 
as  the  witnesses  of  certain  facts.  The  oiiij  diiterence  is, 
that  in  these  passages  (hey  are  called  "  ivorks  ;"  by  Peter 
they  are  denominated  "  ^/ie  holy  spirit.'' 

Another  passage,  which  represents  the  spirit  as  bearing 
witness,  is  Rom.  viii.  16.  "The  spirit  itself  beareth  wit- 
ness with  our  spirit,  (hat  we  are  (he  children  of  God;"  which 
signifies,  "  Our  persuasion  of  (he  peculiar  favour  of  God 
towards  us  is  assured  by  (he  (estimony  of  his  gracious  aid, 
direction,  and  consoladon." 

Other  natural  and  appropriate  personifications  of  the 
Divine  influence  we  find  in  our  Saviour's  directions  to  his 
Apostles  concerning  the  propagation  of  his  gospel  through 
the  world.  See  Mat.  x.  '20.  Mark  xiii.  11.  Luke  xii.  12. 
He  exhorts  (hem  to  plead  his  cause  with  boldne-fs  and  for(i- 
tude,  when  brought  before  kings  and  councils,  and  not  to 
be  anxious  or  hesitating  about  what  they  should  speak, 
since  the  holy  spirit  would  teach  them  what  to  say,  and  in 
fact  not  they  vio\x\d  speak,  bu(  ra(her  the  spirit  of  their 
heavenly  Father  would  speak  in  (hem.  What  language 
could  be  more  animating  or  encouraging  ?  What  assurance 
could  be((er  support  their  resolution  in  every  critical  situa- 
tion ?  When  placed  at  the  bar  of  justice  as  crhninals,  (he 
presen(  aid  of  God  would  guide  (heir  utterance  ;  Divine 
Inspiration  would  speak  througli  (heir  lips,  humbling  (he 
pride  of  iiie  great  and  confounding  (he  wisdom  of  (he  wise, 

18 


130 

But  by  far  the  most  remarkable  example  of  the  personi- 
ficalion  of  the  holy  spirit  occurs  in  the  affectionate  address 
of  Jesus  to  his  Apostles  before  his  crucifixion.  I  shall 
produce  the  portions  of  the  address,  in  which  this  personi- 
fication occurs. 

John  xiv.  16,  17.  "I  will  pray  the  Father,  and  he  shall 
give  yon  another  comforter,  that  he  may  abide  with  you 
for  ever,  even  the  spirit  of  truth,  whom  the  world  cannot 
receive,  because  it  seeth  him  not,  neither  knoweth  him  ; 
but  ye  know  him ;  for  he  dwellelh  with  you,  and  shall  be 
in  you.  I  will  not  leave  you  comfortless ;  I  will  come  to 
you."  In  this  passage  the  intelhgent  reader  will  observe, 
that  the  personification  of  the  Divine  aid  is  brought  on  by 
degrees.  For,  while  it  is  called  a  comforter,  it  is  also 
stated  to  be  a  gift  :  "  I  will  pray  the  Father,  and  he  shall 
give  you  another  comforter."  The  phrase  excludes  the 
idea  of  the  real  personality  of  this  other  comforter,  and 
ought  to  serve  as  a  guide  to  the  proper  interpretation  of  the 
remainder  of  the  address. 

Ver.  25,  26.  "  These  things  have  I  spoken  unto  you, 
being  yet  present  with  you.  Bnt  the  comforter,  which  is 
the  holy  spirit,  whom  the  Father  will  send  in  my  name,  he 
shall  leach  you  all  things,  and  bring  all  things  to  your 
remembrance,  whatsoever  I  have  said  unto  you." 

If  these  words  were  taken  out  of  their  connexion,  and 
interpreted  v/ifhout  any  reference  to  the  general  doctrine 
of  the  Scriptures,  they  would  teach  the  real  personality  of 
the  holy  spirit.  But  it  must  be  observed,  that  even  here 
the  comforter  is  said  to  be  seiit  by  the  Father,  which  would 
prove,  that,  if  a  person,  he  is  inferiour  to  the  Father. 

Chap.  XV.  26,  27.  "But,  when  the  comforter  is  come, 
whom  I  will  send  unto  you  from  the  Father,  even  the  spirit 
of  truth,  which  proceedeth  from  the  Father, /tcs/<a//  testify 


131 

of  me ;  and  ye  also  shall  bear  witness,  because  ye  have 
been  with  me  from  the  be^inning.^^ 

If  this  passage  proves  the  personality  of  the  spirit,  or 
coinforter,  it  also  proves  him  (o  be  subordinate  to  Jesus 
Christ  ;  for  Jesus  is  rep  esented  as  sending  him  to  the 
Apostles  ;  and  the  person,  who  sends,  is  necessarily  greater 
than  the  person  sent.  Those,  who  consider  this  passage  as 
an  instance  of  personification,  will  perceive  in  it  a  close 
resemblance  to  the  first  passage  quoted  under  this  head. 
Peter  there  asserts  in  the  name  of  the  Apostles,  "  IFe  are 
his  witnesses  of  these  things,  and  so  is  also  the  holy 
spirit.^^  But  in  the  speech  of  Peter  the  spirit  was  proved 
to  signify  miraculous  gifts  ;  consequently  it  ought  to  be  so 
understood  in  the  parallel  speech  of  Ciirist. 

Ch.  xvi.  6 — 15.  In  this  passage,  (which  I  omit  quoting 
on  account  of  its  length,)  no.  only  is  the  comforter  said 
to  be  sent  by  Christ,  but  it  is  also  asserted,  that  he  would 
not  speak  of  himself,  and  would  speak  whatsoever  he 
should  hear. 

If  therefore  our  Lord's  consoling  promises  of  the  com- 
forter be  considered  apart  from  the  rest  of  the  Sc<iptures, 
they  disprove  the  Divinity  of  the   holy  spirit,  and  afford 
very  dubious  evidence  even  of  his  personality.     But,  con- 
sidered in  connexion  with  the  general  doctrines   of  Scrip- 
ture upon  this  subject,   they  appear  only  as  an  instance  of 
personification.     In  this  case   indeed,  the   figure  seems  to 
be   remarkably   easy,    appropriate,    and    natural.       Y^'hilst 
Jesus  remained  with  his  Apostles,  he  was  their  comforter  ; 
but,   as  he  was  about  to  depart  from   them,  and   saw   that 
sorrow  had  filled  their  hearts,   he  fells  them,  that  he  would 
send  to  them  in  his  own  stead  another  comforter,  who  would 
never  leave  them,  even  the  directing  and   preserving   Influ- 
ence of  God  upon  their  minds.     The  argument,   which  he 
employs  to  console  them  may  be  thus  expressed  ;  "  A  little 


132 

while  /  have  been  with  yoii ;  /  have  been  your  comforter f 
I  have  guided,  instrucfed,  and  defended  you.  Now  I  go 
to  him  that  sent  me,  and  ye  shall  see  me  no  more.  Bui  I 
will  send  von  instead  of  myself  another  cowforter,  who 
will  remain  with  yon  as  lon<r  as  yon  live.  Of  his 
instruction,  support,  and  consolation,  you  shall  never  be 
deprived." 

We  find  another  singular  example  of  the  personification 
of  the  holy  spirit  in  the  Epistle  of  Paul  to  the  Romans,  eh. 
riii.  26,  27.  "  Likewise  the  spirit  also  helpelh  our  infirmi- 
ties :  for  we  know  not  what  we  should  pray  for  as  we  ought : 
bid  the  spirit  itself  maketh  intercession  for  ns  with  groan- 
ings  which  cannot  be  uttered.  And  he  that  searcheth  the 
hearts  knoweth  wjiat  is  the  mind  of  the  spirit,  because  he 
maketh  intercession  for  the  saints  according  to  the  will  of 
God." 

If  this  passage  proves  the  personality  of  the  holy  spirit, 
it  also  proves  his  subjection  to  God.  For,  if  intercession 
be  the  employment  of  a  person,  it  is  also  the  employment 
of  rtji  inferiour.  But  the  true  meaning  of  the  writer  is,  that, 
as  we  know  not  what  we  ought  to  pray  for,  the  Divine 
Influence,  which  lends  assistance  to  all  our  infirmities,  sug- 
gests to  our  minds  the  proper  subjects  of  petition,  and 
prompts  us  to  address  ourselves  to  God  with  a  right  disposi- 
tion of  mind,  thus  praying  on  our  behalf,  and  making  inter- 
cession for  us. 

On  similar  principles  we  may  explain  the  exhortation, 
several  times  repeated  in  the  book  of  Revelation.  (See 
Rev.  ii.  7,  11,  ir,  29.  iii.  6,  13,  22.)  "  He,  that  hath  an 
ear,  let  him  hear  what  the  spirit  saith  unto  the  churches." 
John  was  writing  an  account  of  what  he  saw  and  Jieard  in 
vision,  that  is,  by  esfraordinary  operations  of  God  upon  his 
mind.  He  therefore  calls  on  C'lristians  to  listen  attentively 
to  what  was  dictated  by  Divine  Inspiration. 


The  only  other  passage  of  the  New  Testament,  in  which 
1  find  the  Divine  influence  personified,  is  Rev.  xiv.  13. 
*'  And  I  heard  a  voice  from  heaven,  saying,  '  Write,  Bless- 
ed are  the  dead,  which  die  in  the  Lord  from  henceforth  ;' 
*  Yea,'  saith  the  spirit,  (that  is,  The  Divine  Influence  sug- 
gests to  me  this  response,)  'Yea,  that  they  may  rest  from 
their  labours  ;  and  their  works  Jo  follow  them.'  " 

I  have  to  add  under  this  division  of  the  subject,  that 
some  persons  may  be  disposed  to  consider  as  personitica- 
tions  of  the  D.vine  influence  several  of  those  passages,  which 
"were  formerly  explained  as  referring  to  the  One  True  God, 
the  Father.  Although  it  appears  to  me,  that,  by  interpret- 
ing the  phrases  "holy  spirit"  and  "spirit  of  God"  in  those 
passages  as  other  names  of  the  Father,  we  adopt  an  ex- 
planation extremely  easy  and  natural,  and  free  from  every 
objection,  yet  I  allow,  that  most  of  tliem  may  be  explained 
as  personijications  of  the  Divine  infnence  without  doing 
any  violence  to  the  rules  of  criticism.  The  reader  is  there- 
fore left  at  liberty  to  reduce  them  to  this  3d  head,  if  he 
sees  fit. 

Nor  ought  I  to  omit  mentioning,  that  some  very  excellent 
persons  have  been  induced  by  those  passages,  which  speak 
of  the  holy  spirit  as  a  person,  to  believe  in  a  created  and 
sitbordinate  holy  spirit,  directed  and  enipowered  by  God 
to  afford  all  necessary  aid,  comfort,  and  illumination  to  his 
creatures.  Those,  who  think  there  is  sufficient  ground  for 
this  opinion,  may  hold  it  without  infringing  the  great  article 
of  the  Unity  of  God.  For  evidence  might  be  collected  to 
prove  the  inferiority  of  such  a  being  to  the  Father  almost 
as  copious  and  overwhelming  as  that,  which  proves  the 
S(d3ordination  of  Jesus  Christ. 

But,  whatever  diiferences  of  opinion  may  exist  on  these 
minor  questions,  one  thing  is  clear  ;  that  the  Scriptures 
attribute    to    God    the  Father,  as  iheir  ori&inal  author; 


134 

all  those  blessings  of  wisdom,  consolation  and  spiritual 
aid,  which  are  supplied  through  the  medium  of  Jesus 
Christ,  or  of  the  holy  spiril.  For  examples  of  what  1  bere 
assert,  the  reader  is  referred  to  the  following  passages  ;  2 
Cor.  i.  3,  4.  Phil.  ii.  13.  1  Thes.  v.  23.  2  Thes.  ii. 
16,  17.  Heb.  xiii.  20,  21.  1  Peter  v.  10.  He  will  find, 
that  "  the  God  of  all  comfort,  who  comforteth  us  in  all  our 
tribulation,"  and  who  "  worketh  in  us  that  which  is  well 
pleasing  in  his  sight  through  Jesus  Christ,"  is  "  our  God 
and  Father,''^  "  the  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,'' 
*^the  Father  of  mercies ''  and  "f/if  very  God  of  peace,  who 
brought  back  from  the  dead  our  Lord  Jesus. 


5» 


PART  in. 


INTRODUCTION. 

In  the  2d  part,  I  have  brought  forward  many  hundred 
passages  of  Scripture,  which,  if  viewed  by  an  unbiassed 
mind  and  taken  in  their  obvious  sense,  afford  clear  and 
direct  testimony  to  the  truth  of  the  Unitarian  doctrines.  I 
shall  now  state  and  examine  the  opposite  arguments,  ad- 
vanced by  Trinitarians,  and  especially  by  Mr.  Wardlaw  ; 
so  that,  by  comparing  the  evidence,  now  to  be  considered, 
with  that  formerly  adduced,  every  reader  will  be  able  to 
form  a  decision  between  the  two  contending  systems. 


CHAPTER  I. 

STATEME^TS   OP   WHAT   THE    DOCTRINE    OP    THE    TRINITY    IS,     AND   OF 
THE    EVIDENCE    REQ,UISITE    IN    EACH    CASE    TO    PROVE    IT. 

Before  we  begin  to  consider  the  arguments,  by  which 
the  doctrine  of  the  Tiinity  is  supported,  it  is  necessary 
that  we  should  understand,  what  that  doctrine  is.  Other- 
wise we  shall  be  using  words  without  ideas,  and  cannot  at 
all  perceive,  how  any  argument  or  observation  applies  to 
the  subject. 


136 

This  inquiry  is  atlended  with  far  greater  difficulties  than 
could  be  conceived  by  one,  who  is  not  acquainted  with  con- 
troversial theology.  For,  whilst  nearly  all  Trinitarians 
have  maintained,  that  their  doctrine  is  inculcated  by  the 
most  positive  testimonies  of  the  Word  of  God,  and  that  the 
belief  of  it  is  necessary  to  the  salvation  of  mankind,  they 
themselves  have  engaged  in  the  most  violent  disputes,  and 
entertained  the  most  discordant  opinions  concerning  its 
nature.  Wilhout  entering  into  all  the  explanations,  proposed 
by  eminent  and  learned  Trinitarians,  it  will  be  sufficient  io 
consider  three,  to  which  the  rest  may,  with  immaterial  ex- 
ceptions, be  reduced.  Two  of  these  opposite  statements 
are  maintained  by  Mr.  Wardlaw  ;  the  other  he  rejects. 
Besides  showing,  what  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  accord- 
ing to  these  three  accounts,  I  shall  in  this  chapter  point  out 
the  kind  and  degree  of  evidence,  by  which  in  each  case  it 
ought  to  be  supported. 

I.  The  first  account  of  the  Trinity,  which  I  shall  notice, 
is  the  SabeUian  ;  so  called,  because  it  was  held  in  the  iJd 
century  by  a  person  of  great  distinction,  named  Sabellius, 
who  had  numerous  followers,  Tiiis  hypothesis  was  revived 
in  inodern  times  by  the  celebrated  mathematician  and 
divine.  Dr.  Wallis.  It  received  the  sanction  of  the  Uni- 
versity of  Oxford,  and  is  probably  held  by  many  of  those, 
who  pass  under  the  name  of  Trinitarians.  The  doctrine  is 
thus  stated  in  the  words  of  Dr.  Wallis  ;  "  A  Divine  Person 
is  only  a  Mode,  a  Respect,  or  Relation  of  God  to  liis  crea- 
tures. He  bearcth  to  his  creatures  these  three  relalions, 
modes,  or  respects,  that  lie  is  tiieir  Creator,  their  Redeem- 
er,  and  their  Sanctifier.  This  is  what  we  mean,  and  all  we 
mean,  when  we  say  God  is  lliree  Persons."  Considera- 
tions on  the  Explications  of  the  Doclrine  of  tiie  Trinity,  p.  7. 

To  those,  who  liold  (tiis  doctrine,  I  beg  to  propose  tliff 
following  questions. 


131 

Why  do  •on  call  the  three  relations  of  God,  as  our 
Crealor,  Redeemer,  and  Sanclifier,  three  persons,  alliiough 
the  term  is  not  so  used  in  Scripture,  and  none  could  be 
more  unappropriate  ? 

Why  do  jou  restrict  yourselves  to  the  number  threCy 
although  God  is  not  only  the  Creator,  the  Redeemer,  and 
the  Sancfifier  of  mankind,  but  bears  towards  them  various 
other  relations,  being,  for  example,  their  Preserver,  their 
Governour,  and  their  Judge  ? 

Why  do  you  assert,  that  these  three  relations  existed 
from  all  eternity.''  For  how  could  God  bear  the  relation 
of  a  Creator,  before  he  had  created  any  thing  ?  or  the  rela- 
tion of  a  Redeemer,  before  he  redeemed  mankind  through 
Christ  ?  or  the  relation  of  a  Sanctifier,  before  there  were 
any  rational  beings  to  sanctify  ? 

You  maintain,  that  the  second  person  of  the  Trinity  was 
begotten  from  the  first,  and  that  the  third  proceeds  from 
the  first  and  second.  But  what  sense  is  there  in  the  ex- 
pression, that  the  relation  of  Redeemer  was  begotten  from 
the  relation  of  Creator,  and  that  the  relation  of  Sanctifier 
proceeds  from  the  relations  of  Creator  and  Redeemer  ? 

Lastly,  Why  do  you  worship  three  modes,  or  relations, 
of  God,  instead  of  worshipping  God  himself  ? 

This  doctrine  is  evidently  nothing  more  than  disguised 
Unitarianism.  It  is  a  melancholy  proof,  that  its  advocates 
love  the  praise  of  men  more  than  the  glory  of  God,  and 
that  they  seek  to  skreen  themselves  from  the  odium  and 
inconvenience,  to  which  an  open  rejection  of  the  Trinitarian 
system  might  expose  them,  by  retaining  its  form  and  lan- 
guage, while  they  deny  its  substance. 

Upon  this  view  of  the  doctrine  it  is  unnecessary  to  dwell 
any  longer,  because  it  is  rejected  by  Mr.  Wardlaw.  With 
respect  to  the  appellations  of  the  three  persons  of  the 
Trinity,  « the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit,"  he 

19 


138 

remarks,  (p.  16.)  "  We  do  not  consider  Iheni  f.s  expressive 
of  a  disfincfion,  Ihat  is  merely  official,  or  as  exhibiiing  the 
same  Divine  Person  under  three  different  aspects.^* 

II.  In  the  second  place,  I  shall  state,  what,  I  believe,  is 
the  genuine  Trinitarian  doctrine,  believed  by  the  great 
mass  of  the  orthodox,  defended  by  many  able  and  learned 
divines,  and  maintained  by  Mr.  Wardlaw  through  the  larger 
part  of  his  volume. 

The  only  proper  signification  of  the  term  Person  is,  a 
Mind,  or  Intelligent  Being.  When  therefore  it  is  assert- 
ed, that  there  are  in  the  Godhead  three  distinct  Persons, 
the  proposition,  if  it  has  any  meaning  at  all,  must  signify, 
that  there  are  in  the  Godhead  three  distinct  Minds,  or 
Intelligent  Beings.  The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  accord- 
ingly staled  almost  in  these  terms  by  one  of  the  most  learned 
and  respectable  dignitaries  of  the  Church  of  England,  Dr. 
W  illiam  Sherlock.  In  his  celebrated  work,  written  in  reply 
to  the  Unitarians,  and  entitled  "A  Vindication  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  Holy  and  Ever-blessed  Trinity,"  he  thus 
speaks  ;  (sec.  iv.  p.  66,  67.)  "It  is  plain  the  Persons  are 
perfectly  distinct,  for  they  are  Three  distinct  and  infinite 
Minds,  and  therefore  Three  distinct  Persons  ;  for  a  Person 
is  an  intelligent  Being,  and  to  say,  they  are  Three  Divine 
Persons,  and  not  Three  distinct  infinite  Minds,  is  both 
heresy  and  non-sense:  The  Scripture,  I'm  sure,  represents 
Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  as  Three  intelligent  Beings, 
not  as  Three  Powers  or  Faculties  of  the  same  Being,  which 
is  down-right  Sabellianism  ;  for  Faculties  are  not  Persons, 
no  more  than  Memory,  Will,  and  Understanding,  are  Three 
Persons  in  One  Man  :  When  we  prove  the  Holy  Ghost  to 
be  a  Pertfon,  against  the  Socinians,  who  make  him  only  a 
Divine  Power,  we  prove  that  all  the  Properties  of  a  Person 
belong  to  him,  snrli  as  Understanding,  Will,  Aflfections, 
and  Actions  ;  which  shows  what  our  notion  of  a  Person  is. 


139 

such  a  Being  as  has  Understanding,  and  Will,  and  Power  of 
Action,  and  it  would  be  very  strange,  that  we  should  own 
Three  Persons,  each  of  which  persons  is  truly  and  properly 
God,  and  not  own  Three  infinite  Minds;  as  if  any  thing 
could  be  a  God,  but  an  infinite  mind. 

Mr.  Wardlaw  is  no  less  explicit  than  Dr.  Sherlock  in 
maintaining,  that  the  three  Persons  in  the  Godhead  are  per- 
fectly distinct.  He  asserts,  in  his  statements  of  the  doc 
trine,  (p.  10,  27,  28.)  (hat  there  are  in  the  Godhead"  three 
distinct  subsistences,"  called  Persons  ;  and,  throughout  his 
volume,  he  represents  the  three  persons  as  sustaining  dif- 
ferent relations  to  mankind,  performing  diderent  otiices,  and 
makins  covenants  with  one  another.  In  his  discourse  "  On 
the  Divinity  and  Personality  of  the  Holy  Spiril,"  he  gives 
a  most  clear,  ample,  and  correct  account  of  the  signification 
of  the  term  Person.  "  What,"  says  he,  "  do  we  mean  by 
a  person.'' — By  a  person  we  mean  that,  which  jyossesses 
personal  properties;"  (p.  271  ;*)  and  afterwards,  in  a  quo- 
tation from  Paley,  he  explains  those  personal  properties  to 
be  such  as  the  following;  "Contrivance,"  "Design," 
"  Consciousness  and  thought,"  the  faculty  of  "perceiving 
an  end  or  purpose,"  and  "  the  power  of  providing  means 
and  directing  them  to  their  end,"  "  a  centre,  in  which  per- 
ceptions unite,  and  from  which  volitions  flow."  Having 
thus  explained  what  is  meant,  when  it  is  asserted,  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  a  person,  he  endeavours  to  prove,  that  the 
Scriptures  attribute  to  this  person,  or  "  intelligent  agent," 
not  only  Will,  Understanding,  Speech,  &c.  but  also  Om- 
niscience, Omnipresence,  Divine  Power,  and  Eternal  Ex- 
istence. In  short,  Mr.  Wardlaw's  doctrine  in  this  Dis- 
course is,  that  the  Third  Person  of  the  Trinity  is  a  Mind, 
or  Intelligent  Being,  possessed  in  an   infinite   degree  of  all 

*  ["  The  Holy  Spirit  is  a  person,  an  intelligent  agent,  a   conscious 
and  active  subsistence." — Wardlaw,  p.  279. — Edit.] 


140 

Divine  attributes. — That  he  holds  the  same  doctrine  con- 
cerning the  Second  Person  is  equally  manifest.  He  assigns 
as  a  reason  for  not  proving  Jesus  Christ  to  be  a  person,  that 
his  personality,  in  the  sense,  in  which  the  term  *'  persona- 
lity^' is  applied  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  was  never  disputed, 
(p.  "iro.)  "When  therefore  he  calls  the  second  of  the  three 
distinct  subsistences  a  person,  he  means  that  that  subsis- 
tence is  a  distinct  mind,  or  intelligent  being  :  and,  in  his 
8d  and  4th  Discourses,  he  labours  to  prove,  that  this  distinct 
intelligent  Being  is  possessed  of  all  Divine  Perfections. — 
It  is  almost  needless  to  remark,  that  he  regards  the  First 
Per^^on,  called  the  Father,  in  the  same  light,  namely,  as  a 
distinct  Mind,  possessing  every  natural  and  moral  perfec- 
tion in  an  infinite  degree. 

Thus  Mr.  Wardlaw  fully  adopts  the  opinion,  stated  by 
Dr.  Sherlock  in  the  above  passage,  that  the  three  Persons 
of  tt)e  Trinity  are  "  three  distinct  infinite  Blinds.'''  Nor> 
I  presume,*  will  he  refuse  his  assent  to  the  concluding  re- 
mark of  that  quotation,  that  each  ir.finite  mind  is  *'  a  God ;" 
for  the  proper  definition  of  a  God  is,  a  self-existent  and  all- 
powerful  Mind.  To  assert  therefore,  that  there  are  three 
such  minds,  is  the  same  thing  as  to  assert,  that  there  are 
three  Gods  ;  and  the  charge  of  Tritheism,  which  was  pre- 
ferred against  Dr.  Sherlock,  lies  equally  against  Mr.  Ward- 
law. 

If  it  be  asked.  What  kind  and  degree  of  evidence  would 
be  suflScienf  to  establish  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  thus 
understood,  I  reply.  No  evidence  whatsoever  ;  not  even 
the  clearest  declarations  of  the  Scriptures  themselves.  For 
its  own  intrinsick  absurdity  is  more  decisive  oo"rtms/  it,  than 
any  contrary  evidence  could  be  for  it.      To  use  the  words 

*  ["  The  Thr*»e  persons  Iiavc  existed  from  eternity,  equal,  and  mutu- 
ally independent." — Warulaw,  p.  294. — Edit.] 


141 

of  Priestley,  it  is  a  doctrine,'*  which  councils  and  parliaments 
may  decree,  but  which  miracles  cannot  prove."  If  teaches, 
that  one  God  is  three  Gods,  one  infinite  Mind  three  infinite 
Minds.  It  asserts,  that  (he  Deity  is  one  in  the  same  sense, 
in  which  he  is  three  ;  and  this  Mr.  Wardlaw  himself  (p.  22) 
allows  to  be  ♦'  an  irreconcilable  contradiction."  Agreea- 
bly therefore  to  the  axioms,  laid  down  in  the  Chapter  upon 
Mysteries,  (P.  I.  ch.  4.)  we  ought  to  reject  this  docjrine, 
even  though  it  were  plainly  stated  in  the  Scriptures  ;* 
because  it  is  in  itself  impossible,  and  because  it  contradicts 
one  of  the  fundamental  articles  of  both  Natural  and  Reveal- 
ed Religion,  the  Unity  of  God. 

IJI.  I  come  now  to  the  third  principal  statement  of  the 
Trinitarian  doctrine,  vis.  the  opinion  of  those,  who  say, 
that  the  subject  is  so  completely  removed  beyond  the 
view  of  the  human  understanding,  that  it  is  impossible  for 
us  to  form  upon  it  any  clear  or  accurate  conceptions. 

Trinitarians  of  this  class  disapprove  of  all  attempts  to- 
wards explaining  the  doctrine.  When  questioned  upon  the 
subject,  they  can  scarcely  be  persuaded  to  declare,  whether 
they  consider  the  three  persons  of  the  Trinity  as  three 
distinct  minds,  or  only  as  three  relations,  or  aspects,  of 
the  same  mind.  The  fact  is,  they  are  suspicious,  that  the 
doctrine  will  not  stand  the  test  of  examination.  They 
have  a  secret  foreboding,  that,  if  it  be  stated  in  clear  terms, 
so  as  to  become  assailable  by  argument,  it  will  fall  to  the 
ground.  Its  safety  depends  upon  its  entire  removal  from 
the  field  of  discussion. 

To  this  elusive  representation  of  the  doctrine  Mr.  Ward- 
law  has  recourse.  In  the  part  of  his  volume,  relating  more 
directly  to  this  subject,  (that  is,  in  the  First  and  the  begin- 

*  [Or,  to  speak  more  properly,  the  Scriptures  themselves  ought  to 
be  rejected,  as  Mr,  Yates  himself  has  elsewhere  explained  it.    Edit.t 


142 

ning  of  the  Second  Discourse,)   he  strives  to  render  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  invulnerable  by  reducing  it  to  a 
shadow.     We  have  seen,  that,  in  the  subsequent  part  of  his 
work,  he  gives  an  exact  account  of  the  meaning  of  the  term 
Person  as  applied  to  the  Trinity ;  but  he  says  here,  that  it 
is  only  used  ^^for  want  of  a  better  rvord,^'  and  that  a  "clear 
conception"  of  its   precise  import   is  utterly  unattainable. 
Through  more  than  the  latter  half  of  his  volume,  he  treats 
the  distinction  of  Persons  in  the  Godhead  as  a  clear  and  in- 
telligible doctrine,   endeavouring   to  prove,  that  they   are 
personal  agents,  who  enjoy  all  the  perfections,  and  exercise 
independently  of  one  another  all  the  functions,  of  Deity  ; 
but  here  he   asserts,   that  *  the  nature  and   mode  of  that 
distinction"  is  perfectly  incomprehensible.  He  there  dwells 
in  aniinated  language  upon  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  as  in 
the  highest  degree  interesting  to  the  affections,  and  influen- 
tial upon  the  conduct,  of  men  ;  but  here  he  in  fact  confesses 
it  to  be  an  almost  unmeaning  sound.      There,  as  we  have 
seen,  he  maintains   the  persons  of  the  Godhead   to  be  one 
and  three  in  the  same  sense;  here  he  "  does  not  pretend  to 
know,  or  to  say,  ho7V  they  are  one,  and  how  they  are  three." 
The  greater   part  of  his  volume   is  filled   with  arguments 
and  observations  relating  to  the  Trinity,  in  composing  which 
he   doubtless  annexed  some  ideas  to  the  words  which  he 
employed ;  but  here  he  contends,  that  the  doctrine  cannot 
possibly  be  shown  to  contradict  reason,  because  it  is  a  thing, 
*^  which  we  do  not  at  all  understand.'' 

If  it  be  asked,  What  evidence  is  proper  to  establish  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  thus  represented,  I  recur,  as  before, 
to  the  principles  laid  down  in  the  Chapter  upon  Mysteries. 
The  assertion,  that  "  in  the  unity  of  the  Godhead  there 
are  three  subsistences,  or  persons,  the  Father,  the  Son,  and 
the  Holy  Spirit,"  is,  in  this  case,  a  mystery  according  to 
the  second  of  the  senses,  there  illustrated.     It  is  "  a  propo- 


143 

r 

sillon,  to  the  terras  of  which  no  distinct  ideas  are  annexed." 
Let  us  then  apply  our  general  maxims  to  this  particular 
case. 

We  allow,  that,  although  we  be  "  left  in  total  ignorance** 
of  the  meaning  of  the  proposition,  there  maj  unquestion- 
ably be  some  hidden  truth  in  it,  perceptible  to  an  angelick, 
or  a  Divine,  understanding.  If  therefore  it  be  uttered  by 
one,  who  exhibits  the  clear  proofs  of  supernatural  inspiration, 
in  deference  to  his  Divine  authoritv,  we  shall  admit  its 
truth.  But  our  minds  are  forcibly  impressed  with  the  fol- 
lowing considerations. 

1.  Of  what  use  can  this  declaration  be  to  us,  if  we  con- 
nect no  ideas  with  the  terras,  in  which  it  is  expressed  ? 
Concerning  the  abuse  of  the  gift  of  tongues  am*ng  the  first 
Christians,  St.  Paul  makes  these  remarks ;  (1  Cor.  xiv. 
7 — 9  ;)  "  Even  things  without  life,  giving  sound,  whether 
pipe  or  harp,  except  they  give  a  distinction  in  the  sounds, 
how  shall  it  be  known  what  is  piped  or  harped  ?  For,  if  the 
trumpet  give  an  uncertain  sound,  who  shall  prepare  himself 
to  the  battle  ?  So  likewise  ye,  except  ye  utter  by  the  tongue 
7Vords  easy  to  be  understood,  how  shall  it  be  known  what 
is  spoken  ?  For  ye  shall  speak  into  the  air."  These  ob- 
servations have  a  clear  and  exact  relation  to  the  subject 
before  us.  How  can  the  empty  sound  of  unintelligible- 
names  have  any  influence  upon  our  conduct?  Can  it  console 
us  in  distress  ?  Can  it  guard  us  against  temptation  ?  Can  it 
guide  us  in  the  path  of  duty  ?  No  ;  it  is  addressed  only  to 
our  outward  ears,  and  not  to  our  understandings.  It  can 
therefore  exert  no  influence  upon  our  minds ;  it  can  have 
no  efficacy  upon  our  practice. 

2.  We  can  have  no  suflScient  warrant  for  believing,  oa 
the  authority  of  the  Scriptures,  the  unintelligible  proposition, 
that  "  there  exist  three  persons  in  one  God,"  unless  we  find 


144 

in  the  Scriptures  Ihese  very  words.  Annexing  no  distinct 
ideas  to  the  terms  of  the  proposition,  we  cannot  prove  its 
truth  by  a  comparison  of  those  terms  with  other  assertions 
or  phrases,  to  which  distinct  ideas  are  attached.  Thus  the 
question  may  be  brought  to  a  spee<ly  issue.  Whatever 
assertions  are  contained  in  the  Scriptures,  we  believe  to  be 
true,  whether  we  understand  them,  or  not.  Let  Trinitari- 
ans state  their  doctrines,  as  we  state  ours,  iii  the  words  of 
Scripture ;  we  shall  then  be  agreed.  Let  them  point  out 
the  Chapter  and  Verse,  where  the  assertion  is  to  be  found, 
that  "in  the  unity  of  the  Godhead  there  are  three  subsis- 
tences, or  persons,  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy 
Ghost ;"  we  shall  believe  that  the  proposition  is  as  true^  as 
it  is  unintelligible.  But,  if  the  Bible  does  not  state  the 
doctrine  in  these  very  words,  we  cannot  be  justified  in  be- 
lieving it ;  because  all  reasoning,  deduction,  or  inference,  is 
from  the  nature  of  the  case  impossible. 

3.  We  think  it  a  contradiction  in  terms  to  say,  that  this 
incomprehensible  doctrine  is  revealed.  If  it  had  put  us 
into  possession  of  any  knowledge,  of  which  we  were  before 
destitute  ;  if  it  had  thrown  any  additional  light  upon  a  sub- 
ject, with  which  we  were  but  partially  acquainted  ;  if  it  had 
introduced  into  our  minds  any  new  ideas,  or  strengthened 
any  faint  impressions  ;  we  might  receive  it  with  gratitude 
and  reverence  as  a  Divine  Revelation.  But  we  cannot  with 
propriety  give  that  name  to  a  proposition,  which  makes 
nothing  known  to  us,  which  neither  revives  old  conceptions, 
nor  suggests  new  ideas,  and  which,  in  short,  wants  all  the 
characteristicks  of  truth  revealed. 

I  conclude  these  remarks  on  the  three  principal  explana- 
tions of  the  Trinitarian  doctrine,  with  the  words  of  a  most 
sensible  and  amiable  man,  which  generally  occur  to  my 
mind,  whenever,  in  the  course  of  my  reading,  1  have  the 
misfortune  to  meet  with  any  mention  of  the  Trinity; 


145 

"The  schoolmen  have  much  more  of  this  jargon  and 
canting  language ;  and  I  envy  no  man  the  underslanding 
these  phrases  ;  but  to  me  they  seem  to  signify  nothing,  but 
to  have  been  words  invented  by  idle  and  conceited  men, 
which  a  great  many  ever  since,  lest  they  should  seem  to  be 
ignorant,  would  seem  to  understand;  but  I  wonder  most, 
that  men,  when  ihey  have  amused  and  puzzled  themselves 
and  others  with  hard  words,  should  call  this  explaining 
things." 

Tillotson's  Sermons,  V.  II.  p.  60r. 


20 


146 


CHAPTER  II. 

EXAMINATION  OF  THE  EVIDENCE    FOR    A  PLURALITY  OF    PERSONS  IN  TH£ 

QODHEAD. 

In  the  former  part  of  this  volume,  I  endeavoured  to  prove, 
by  arguments  derived  both  from  the  appearances  of  Nature, 
and  from  the  testimony  of  Revelation,  that  there  exists  but 
one  Supreme  mind,  person,  or  intelligent  being,  who  is  alone 
uncreated  and  the  creator  of  all  other  things,  and  who  is 
the  gJAer  of  all  the  powers  and  faculties,  which  belong  to 
his  creatures.  In  opposition  to  this  doctrine,  Mr.  Wardlaw, 
with  the  generality  of  Trinitarians,  maintains  through  the 
greater  portion  of  his  Discourses,  that  there  exist  three 
minds,  persons,  or  intelligent  beings,  who  are  co-equal  and 
co-eternal,  and  who  independently  of  one  another  possess 
all  the  perfections,  and  exercise  all  the  functions,  of  Deity. 
I  have  already  observed,  that,  as  this  doctrine,  held  in  con- 
junction with  that  of  the  Unity  of  God,  implies  an  irrecon- 
cilable contradiction,  it  cannot  be  established  by  any 
evidence  whatsoever.  Nevertheless,  for  the  satisfaction  of 
candid  inquirers,  and  to  vindicate  the  Holy  Scriptures  from 
the  charge  of  containing  so  great  an  absurdity,  I  shall  state 
and  examine  the  various  arguments,  by  which  Mr.  Wardlaw, 
in  common  with  the  great  n)ass  of  Trinitarians,  endeavours 
to  support  it. 

I.  In  the  first  place,  he  objects  to  the  proof  of  the  Unity 
of  God,  derived  frojn  the  appearances  of  the  material  crea- 
tion. He  allows,  that  all  nature  presents  the  most  decisive 
marks  of  "  har.nony  of  plan"  and  "  unity  of  design."  But 
he  denies,  (p.  9.)  that  these  appearances  prove  the  existence 
of  ''only  one  desig-ntr,''   since    ''%inily  of  counsel  may 


147 

subsist  among  a  phmdity  of  corinsellorsy  He  also  affirms, 
that  it  is  admitted  bj  the  best  writers  on  Natural  Theology, 
that  the  whole  of  their  argument  for  the  Divine  Unity, 
drawn  from  harmony  of  plan  in  the  universe,  "goes  no 
further  than  to  a  unity  of  counsel."  Except  Dr.  Paley, 
whom  Mr.  Wardlaw  quotes  as  one  example  of  the  truth  of 
his  remark,  I  know  of  no  other  author  upon  Natural  Reli- 
gion, who  makes  this  concession.  I  have  no  doubt  however, 
that  Mr.  Wardlaw  has  seen  others,  though  I  cannot  imagine 
who  they  are.  With  respect  to  Dr.  Paley,  it  should  be 
considered,  that  he  was  (at  least  professedly)  a  Trinitarian. 
His  system  of  Christian  faith  would  incline  him  to  consider 
uniformity  of  plan  as  proving  only  unity  of  design,  main- 
tained by  three  designers.  He  therefore  carries  the  argu- 
ment no  further  than  to  the  proof  of  iniity  of  counsel.  To 
me  his  Chapter  upon  this  Attribute  has  always  appeared 
very  defective.  If  we  consult  any  authors  upon  Natural 
Religion,  who  held  Unitarian  sentiments,  such  as  Lactantius 
among  the  ancients,  or  Abernethy  among  the  moderns,  we 
find  the  argument  for  the  Unity  of  God  better  elucidated, 
and  rendered  satisfactory  and  conclusive."* 

Of  the  argument,  as  I  have  stated  it  at  the  commencement 
of  the  Second  Part,  every  reader  will  judge  for  himself. 
It  will  probably  impress  different  minds  with  different  de- 
grees of  force.  The  conclusion,  there  drawn,  is  in  my 
opinion  irresistible,  if  we  only  keep  in  view  the  principle, 
adopted  in  all  resonings  from  effect  to  cause,  that  no  more 
causes  ought  to  be  supposed  than  are  necessary  to  account 
for  the  effects.  One  omnipotent  and  infinite  Designer  is 
coQipetent  to  produce  every  effect,  which  is  discernible 
throughout  the  universe :  there  is  no  occasion  for  more  ; 
it  is  unreasonable  to  believe  in  more.  The  evidence  of 
Nature  therefore  decidedly  opposes  the  doctrine  of  three 
infinite  Minds,  three  all-powerful  and  all-perfect  contrivers.. 
*  See  note  at  the  end  of  the  volume. 


148 


II.  In  the  second  place,  Mr.  Wardlaw,  (p.  11.)  argues 
a  plurality  of  Persons  in  the  Godhead  from  the  plural  ter- 
mination of  Aleim,  Adonim,  and  other  Ilebiew  names 
for  God. 

He  observes,  that  Deut.  vi.  4.  according  to  the  proper 
iinporl  of  the  words  in  the  original,  denotes  such  a  plurality  ; 
and  he  presents  the  passage  to  his  readers  in  the  following 
translation  ;  "  Hear,  O  Israel,  Jehovah,  our  Gods,  is  one 
Jehovah."  If  this  translation  had  been  proposed  by  a 
Unilarian,  I  have  no  doubt  if  would  have  been  said,  that  he 
did  it  with  a  direct  intention  to  burlesque  the  Scriptures. 
I  believe,  that  Mr.  Wardlaw  had  not  this  design;  but  his 
version  certainly  produces  this  effect.  To  ray  mind  nothing 
can  sound  more  offensive.  I  do  not  however  reject  this 
'argument  from  the  force  of  mere  feelings,  however  justifia- 
ble, but  from  the  following  considerations. 

1.  First ;  if  the  plural  termination  of  Aleim,  &c.  indi- 
cates plurality  at  all,  it  denotes,  not  only  a  plurality  of  per- 
sons or  subsistences,  but  a  plurality  of  Gods ;  for,  on  this 
supposition,  Mr.  Wardlaw's  translation  is  undoubtedly  cor- 
rect, "  Jehovah,  our  Gods^  But  this,  I  presume  is  more 
Jhan  even  Trinitarians  will  be  inclined  to  admit. 

2.  I  observe,  secondly,  that  the  true  explanation  of  the 
use  of  the  plural  number  in  this  case  is  known  to  every  tyro 
in  Hebrew  literature.  The  whole  mystery  may  be  resolv- 
ed bv  a  short  quotation  from  that  useful  book,  the  Hebrew 
Grammar ; 

"  Woriis,  that  express  dominion,  dignity,  majesty,  are 
commonly  put  in  the  plural." 

Wilson's  Hebrew  Grammar,  p.  270. 

Thus  it  is  evident  to  mere  English  readers,  that  the  plural 
termination  of  the  Hebrew  names  for  God,  far  from  being  an 
anomaly,  as  Mr.  Wardlaw  calls  it,  is  agreeable  to  a  common 
rule  of  syntax.     I  shall  illustrate  this  rule  by  a  few  exam- 


I 


149 

pies.     Gen.  xxiv.  9,  10.     On  account  of  the  great  dignity 
and  authority  of  the  patriarch  Abraham,  the  word  Adonim, 
translated   Master,  is  put  in  the  plural  number.     The  literal 
translation  of  the  passage   is  therefore  as  follows  :  "  And 
the  servant  put  his  hand  under  the  thigh  of  Abraham  his 
masters,  and  sware  to  him  concerning  that  matter;  and  the 
servant  took  ten  camels  of  the  camels  of  his  masters,  and 
departed;  for  all   the  goods  of  his  masters  were    in    his 
hand."    Also,  in  ver.  51,  the  expression,  which  is  rendered 
according  to  our  idiom,  "  the  wife  of  the  son  of  thy  master,^' 
is  literally,  "  the    wife  of  the  son  of  thy  masters.'"  Agree- 
ably to  the  same   rule,   Potiphar  is  called  the   blasters,  or 
Lords,  of  Joseph  ;   (Gen.  xxxix.   2,  3,  7,  8,  16, 19,  20.  xl. 
7.)   Pharoah  is  styled   the  Lords  of  his  butler  and  baker ; 
(Gen.  xl.  1  ;  and  Joseph  as  governour  of  Egypt,  is  denomi- 
nated Adonim,  a  Lords  ;  (Gen.  xlii.  30,  33.  xliv.  8.)  What 
then  becomes  of  Mr.  Wardlaw's  argument  from  the  Hebra- 
ism, "  If  I  be  ?nasters,  where  is  my  fear  ?"   (Mai.  i.  6.)  Ac- 
cording to  his  method  of  reasoning,  the  Scriptures   teach, 
that  there  was  a  plurality  of  persons  in  Abraham,   in  Poti- 
phar, in  Pharaoh,  and  in  Joseph  ;  and,  if  I  did  not  confine 
myself  to  the  book  of  Genesis,  1  might  bring  numerous  other 
instances  to  illustrate  the  application  of  his  rule. 

3.  As  a  further  proof  of  the  futility  of  this  argument,  I 
observe,  thirdly,  that  the  plural  termination  is  employed  in 
speaking,  not  only  of  the  true  God,  but  also  of  false  Deities. 
We  have  an  instance  of  this  in  the  account  of  the  Golden 
calf,  constructed  by  the  Israelites.  Ex.  xxxii.  3,  4.  "  And 
all  the  people  brake  off  the  golden  ear-rings,  which  were 
in  their  ears,  and  brought  them  unto  Aaron  ;  and  he  received 
them  at  their  hand,  and  fashioned  it  with  a  graven  tool, 
after  he  had  made  it  a  molten  calf;  and  they  said,  '  These 
be  thy  Gods,  O  Israel,  which  brought  thee  up  out  of  the 
land  of  Egypt,"  Ver.  7,  8. "  And  the  Lord  said  unto  Moses^ 


150 

*' Go,  get  thee  clown:  for  thy  people,  which  thou  broughlest 
out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  have  corrupted  themselves:  they 
have  turned  aside  quickly  out  of  the  way,  which  I  com- 
manded them :  they  have  made  them  a  molten  calf,  and  have 
worshipped  it,  and  have  sacrificed  thereunto,  and  said, 
*  These  be  thy  Gods,  O  Israel,  which  have  brought  thee  up 
out  of  the  land  of  Egypt.'  Ver.  31.  "  And  Moses  return- 
ed unto  the  Lord,  and  said,  '  Oh,  this  people  have  sinned 
a  great  sin,  and  have  made  them  gods  of  Gold.''  In  these 
instances,  (he  original  would  have  been  more  properly  trans- 
lated, "  Let  this  be  thy  god,  O  Israel,  who  brought  thee  out 
of  the  land  of  Egypt,"  and,  "  This  people  have  made  theia 
a  god  of  gold."  It  is  evident,  even  to  the  English  reader, 
that  the  plural  number  is  employed,  although  it  is  certain, 
that  neither  the  Israelites,  nor  the  writer  of  the  narrative, 
had  any  idea  of  a  plurality  of  persons  in  the  idol. 

In  like  manner,  the  plural  number  is  commonly  employ- 
ed in  speaking  of  other  false  Divinities.  Judges  viii.  33. 
"  And  it  came  to  pass  ae  soon  as  Gideon  was  dead,  that 
the  children  of  Israel  turned  again,  and  went  a  whoring  after 
Baalim,  and  made  Baal-berith  their  god  ;"  literally  trans- 
lated, it  is,  "  their  gods."  Judges  xvi.  23,  24.  "  Then 
the  lords  of  the  Philistines  gathered  them  together  for  to 
offer  a  great  sacrifice  unto  Dagon,  their  god,  and  to  re- 
joice ;  for  they  said,  '  Our  god  hath  delivered  Samson  our 
enemy  into  our  hand  :'  and,  when  the  people  saw  him,  they 
praised  their  god  ;  for  they  said,  '  Our  god  hath  deliver- 
ed into  our  hands  our  enemy.'  "  In  all  these  instances, 
the  word  Aleim,  ^^ god,''  although  applied  to  Dagon,  a 
single  idol,  is  in  the  plural  number.  1  Kings  xi.  33.  "  lie- 
cause  they  have  forsaken  me,  and  have  worshipped  Ashto- 
reth,  the  goddess  of  the  Sidonians,  Cheraosh,  the  god  of 
the  Moabites,  and  Milcom,  the  god  of  the  children  of  Am- 
nion."    In  these  several  cases    the  plural  word  Aleim  ie 


151 

used  in  the  original,  although  each  of  the  idol  deities,  Ash?- 
toreth,  Chemosh,  and  Milcom,  was  a  single  person,  the 
ghost  of  a  dead  man  or  woman.  Other  examples  may  be 
found,  Num.  xxv.  1 — 5.  Deut.  iv.  7.  1  Sam.  iv.  i — 8. 
1  Kings  xi.  5.  2  Kings  i.  2.  xix.  37. 

4.  Fourthly,  it  may  be  remarked  in  reply  to  the  argu- 
ment from  the  plural  termination  of  the  name  of  God,  that 
it  has  been  rejected  by  many  of  the  most  learned  Trinita- 
rians. Among  others  Calvin  himself  denies,  that  the  plural 
termination  is  any  evidence  of  a  plurality  of  persons  in  the 
Godhead.  That  celebrated  man  had  too  much  learning 
and  too  much  sense,  to  build  his  system  upon  such  a  sandy 
foundation.* 

*  ["  The  plural  term  gods,  Elohim,  is  used  of  one  of  the  persons  alone, 
Thy  thro7ie,  O  Gods,  is  for  ever  and  ever.  And,  O  Gods,  thy  Gods  have 
anointed  thee.  These  texts  tlie  apostle  applies  to  Christ.  Now  un- 
less Christ,  the  Son,  have  another  Trinity  in  him,  the  plural  word 
cannot  intend  three  persons,  but  one  ;  only  it  is  naore  majestick." 
Emlyn,  vol.  2d  p.  38.  "  It  is  very  apparent,  that  it  was  not  the  in- 
tent of  these  plural  expressions,  to  teach  us  a  plurality  of  persons  in 
the  Godhead,  because  they  are  only  used  (and  but  rarely  neither)  in  the 
Old  Testament,  where  it  is  confessed  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  was 
not  explicitly  revealed  ;  but  they  are  never  once  used  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament, of  which  it  is  pretended,  that  this  doctrine  is  the  fundamental 
article.  To  us  Christians  God  Tiever  speaks  so,  and  sure  he  would  have 
done  it  as  fully  as  to  the  Jews,  if  he  intended  we  should  believe  this 
doctrine  more  explicitly  and  fully  than  they.  In  the  gospel  we  should 
find  God  using  this  language  about  himself,  we  and  us,  and  Gods,  if  ever 
that  had  been  designed  to  express  a  Trinity  ;  for  no  style  had  been 
more  natural  than  this  current  of  speech,  supposing  God  to  be  three 
persons.  It  is  evident  that  this  was  but  an  idiom  of  language,  and  has 
no  argument  in  it,  since  the  A'ew  Testament  shuns  all  such  style,  where 
yet  it  had  been  most  proper  for  that  purpose.  The  Christian  revela- 
tion always  speaks  God  to  be  one  singular  person;  whereas  three  per- 
sons in  one  Gorf  had  been  so  strange  a  matter,  that  the  most  particular 
care  and  accuracy  of  expression  had  been  necessary  to  be  used,  if  that 
had  been  to  be  revealed  to  our  faith."  Emlyn,  vol.  1.  It  is  remarkable 


152 

III.  In  the  third  place,  Mr.  Wardlaw  argues  for  a  plu- 
rality of  persons  in  the  Godhead,  from  the  construction  of 
the  Hebrew  names  for  God  Avith  verbs  sometimes  in  the 
singular  number,  and  sometimes  in  the  plural.  He  calls 
this  construction  an  anomaly,  or  irregularity,  (p.  12.) 
But  those,  who  have  learned  Hebrew,  know,  that,  when  a 
plural  noun  is  used  to  denote  a  single  object,  (which  is  the 
case  in  various  instances,  the  verb  is  sometimes  put  in  the 
plural  Old  of  regard  merely  to  the  plural  termination  of  the 
nonn.  See  Patrick  and  Le  Clerc  on  Gen.  xx.  13.  This 
rule  affords  the  true  explanation  of  the  few  passages,  in 
which  Aleim,  the  Hebrew  word  for  God,  is  followed  by  a 
plural  verb  ;  and,  by  consulting  Ex.  xxxli.  4.  8.  ("  Let 
this  be  thy  god,  O  Israel,  who  brought  thee  out  of  the 
land  of  Egypt,")  the  critical  student  will  tind,  that  a  plural 
verb  is  employed,  even  when  Aleim  is  applied,  not  to 
Jehovah,  the  only  True  God,  but  to  an  idol. 

IV.  Another  proof  of  a  plurality  of  persons  in  the  God- 
head, much  insisted  on  by  Mr.  Wardlaw,  is  the  occasional 
use  of  the  plural  pronouns.  Us  and  Our,  when  God  is 
represented  speaking  of  himself. 

In  stating  the  Scriptural  evidence  for  the  Unity  of  God, 
I  observed,  (Part  II.  ch.  ii.)  that  that  doctrine  is  implied  in 
every  passage,  in  which  the  personal  pronouns  of  the  singu- 
lar number  are  used   to  denote   the  Supreme  Deity.     In 


that  the  passage  which  Mr.  Wardlaw  thus  translates  from  the  Old 
Testament  "  Hear,  O  Israel,  Jehovah,  our  Gods,  is  one  Jehovah,"  has 
been  quoted  by  Jesus,  and  is  thus  translated  by  the  evangelist  Mark 
into  Greek.  Mark  xii.  2'J,  "  The  Lord,  our  Gon.  is  one  Lord."  The 
plural  form  disappears  entirely  in  the  Neiv  2\stament,  although  we  are 
told  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  which  this  form  is  intended  to 
support,  is  the  cardinal  doctrine  of  the  New  Testament.  Is  n>^t  this 
enough  to  settle  the  question  ?  Is  not  St.  Mark,  when  he  reports  the 
words  of  Jesus,  as  sure  a  guide  to  the  import  of  the  Old  Testament,  aS 
Mr.  Wardlaw  ?— Editor.] 


153 

opposition  however  to  the  thousands  and  tens  of  thousands 
of  passages,  which  imply  by  the  use  of  singular  pronouns, 
that  God  is  one  person,  the  Trinitarians  have  coliecled 
together  as  many  as  three,  which  by  the  use  of  plural 
pronouns  are  supposed  to  indicate  a  phuality  of  persons  in 
the  Godhead.  These  passages  I  shall  now  produce.  Gen. 
i.  26.  "  And  God  said,  '  Let  ms  make  man  in  otir  image, 
after  our  likeness.'  "  Gen.  xi.  7.  "  And  Jehovah  said, 
*  Go  to,  let  MS  go  down,  and  confound  their  language,  that 
they  may  not  understand  one  another's  speech.'  "  Isa.  vi. 
0.  "Also  I  heard  the  voice  of  the  Lord,  saying,  •  Whoru 
shall  I  send,  and  who  will  go  for  ws.-"  "  From  among  these 
three  passages  Mr.  Wardlaw  has  selected  the  two  former 
as  examples. 

The  remarks,  which  I  would  submit  in  reply,  are  these. 

1.  First,  r  would  observe,  that  by  bringing  forward  these 
passages  Mr.  Wardlaw  acknowledges  the  validity  of  the 
opposite  argument  of  the  Unitarians,  which  is  established 
upon  similar  grounds.  He  acknowledges,  that  the  number 
of  persons  in  the  Godhead  is  indicated  by  the  personal 
pronouns,  employed  in  speaking  of  the  Godhead.  His 
argument  proceeds  on  the  supposition,  that  the  use  of  a 
plural  pronoun  in  speaking  of  God  intimates,  that  there  is 
in  God  a  plurality  of  persons  :  of  course  he  will  admit,  that 
the  use  of  a  singular  pronoun  in  speaking  of  God  denotes, 
that  God  is  one  person  only.  As  a  Unitarian,  tiiere  is 
nothing,  which  I  more  desire  than  the  concession,  that  the 
number  of  persons  in  the  Godhead  may  be  inferred  from 
the  use  of  the  personal  pronouns  in  the  Sacred  Scriptures  ; 
and  this  is  granted  to  me  in  the  argument,  which  I  am  now 
considering. 

2.  Secondly,  I  remark,  that  the  true  explanation  of  these 

three  passages  is  easily  to  be  found,  by  considering,  that  in 

all  the  languages,  with  which   we  are  acquainted,   persons 

21 


»5 
J 
5J 


154 

«}f  great  power  and  dignify  someliines  speak  of  themselves 
in  the  plural  number.  It  is  usual  for  the  princes  and  great 
men  of  the  earth  to  express  their  desires  and  intentions  by 
saying,  "It  is  our  pleasure,"  "Given  at  oiir  palace 
"  Let  us  go  to  such  a  place,"   "  JVe  command  this  or  that 

The  Scriptures  present  various  examples  of  this  universal 
custom.  Thus,  (1  Kings  xii.  6.)  when  Rehoi)oam  asks  the 
opinion  of  the  old  men  concerning  the  reply  to  be  made  to 
an  important  request  of  the  Israetilish  nation,  he  says  to 
them,  "ITowdoye  advise,  that  I  may  answer  this  people?'* 
But,  when  he  consults  the  yovng  men,  (ver.  9.)  he  assumes 
a  higher  tone,  and  says,  "  What  counsel  give  ye,  that  we 
may  answer  this  people?"  See  also  the  parallel  place  ;  2 
Chron.  x.  6 — 9. 

The  letter  of  Arfaxerxes,  king  of  Persia,  in  reply  to  the 
recommendation  that  he  would  put  a  stop  to  the  rebuilding 
of  .Jerusalem,  commences  in  these  terms  ;  (Ezra  iv.  18.) 
"The  letter,  which  _ye  sent  unto  us,  hath  been  plainly  read 
before  me." 

Nor  is  this  language  used  only  by  kings.  Our  Saviour 
(John  iii.  11,  12.)  says  to  Nicodemus,  "Verily,  verily;  I 
say  unto  you.  We  speak  that  we  do  know,  and  testify  that 
we  have  seen,  and  ye  receive  not  ottr  witness :  if  /  have 
told  you  earthly  things,  and  ye  believe  not,  how  shall  ye 
believe,  if  /  tell  you  heavenly  things  ?"  Here  Jesus  Christ 
not  only  calls  himself  /,  but  likewise  we.  Is  it  to  be  in- 
ferred from  the  latter  circumstance,  that  several  persons 
were  united  in  him  ? 

The  Apostle  Paul,  when  he  speaks  of  his  own  feelings 
and  condition,  uses  the  plural  pronouns,  JVe,  Us,  Our, 
almost  as  frequently  as  the  singular  pronouns,  /,  3Ie,  Mine. 
But  no  one,  reading  his  epistles,  imagines,  that  he  intended 
to  represent  himself  as  a  plurality  of  persons. 


155 

If  <herefore  we  consider  how  commow  fhroiighoiit  (he 
workUias  been  (he  use  of  plural  pi  onouns  (o  express  ihetiig- 
n'lty  and  au(hori(v  of  (he  speaker,  and  (ha(  in  (lie  Scriptures 
this  phraseology  is  employed  by  a  Prophet,  an  Apostle,  or 
a  Prince,  we  cannot  be  surprised,  (ha(  in  three  instances  (he 
King  of  Kings  should  employ  (he  same  majeslick  language. 
The  wonder  is,  that  (he  examples  are  so  lare.  Perhaps 
this  form  of  expression  was  in  general  studiously  avoided, 
in  order  to  preserve  (he  great  doc(rine  of  (he  Uni(y  of  God 
as  one  person,  from  the  possibility  of  luisappreiiension.* 

Against  the  explanation,  which  I  have  now  given,  and 
which  is  supported  bynames  of  (he  highes(  audiority  among 
not  only  Unitarian,  but  also  Jewish  and  Trini(arian  criticks, 
Mr.  Wardlaw  urges  (hiee  objecdons.   (p.  12,  13.) 

"  In  the  first  place,"  says  he,  "  it  is  not  consistent  with 
fact,  that  the  Supreme  Being  is  ever  represented  in  (he 
Scriptures  as  using  (his  particular  style  ;"  by  which  asser* 
tion  he  only  takes  for  granted  the  thing  (o  be  proved. 
Secondly,  he  raises  us  to  the  tip-toe  of  expec(a(ion  by 
saying,  "Neither  was  it,  in  point  of  fact,  the  s(yle  of  (he 
kings  of  the  earth  themselves  in  the  time  of  Moses."  It 
appears,  that  Mr.  Wardlaw  has  access  (o  documen(s,  wri(- 
ten  in  the  time  of  Moses,  of  whose  existence  the  learned 
world  was  never  yet  informed.  But,  un(il  he  shall  sadsfy  the 
ardour  of  literary  curiosity  by  the  publication  of  these  in- 
valuable records,  we  must  judge  from  the  evidence,  which 
now  lies  before  us,  and  presume,  that  the  kitjgs  of  the  earth 
occasionally  used  in  that  age  the  same  style,  which  we  know 

*  It  is  well  known,  that  Mohammed  did  not  believe  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity,  and  that  his  followers  in  Asia  are  as  strict  in  asserting  the 
proper  Unity  of  God,  as  the  Unitarians  in  Europe.  Yet  nothing  is 
more  common  in  the  Koran,  than  for  God  to  speak  of  himself  in  the 
plural  number,  fFe  did,  We  gave,  tVe  tommanded.  These  could  only 
be  intended  as  majestick  expressions. 


156 

them  (o  have  used  in  all  aajes,  with  which  we  are  more 
familiarlj  acquainled.  Mr.  Wardlaw  adds,  that  no  instance 
can  be  produced  from  Ihe  whole  Bible,  in  which  a  king 
speaks  of  himself  in  the  plural  number.  Whether,  in  the 
instances  above  quoled,  Rehoboam  and  Artaxerxes  do  not 
speak  of  themselves  in  (he  plural  as  well  as  the  singidar 
number,  the  reader  must  judge.  In  the  3d  place,  Mr. 
Waidlaw  asks  triumphantly.  •'  When  do  we  ever  find  an 
earUilj  monarch  consulting  wllh  himself.^ — addressing 
proposals  to  himself  .''^^  Let  him  look,  in  the  original 
Hf  brew,  at  Gen.  xviii.  21.  He  will  find,  that  the  same 
Being,  who  in  one  of  the  passages  under  consideration  says, 
"Let  us  go  down,"  expresses  the  same  purpose  by  saying, 
"  Let  me  go  down."  Or,  if  our  friend  objects,  that  the 
phrase  in  the  common  translation  is,  "  /  will  go  down,"  I 
reply,  that  the  two  passages,  which  he  has  produced,  may 
with  equal  propriety  be  translated,  "  fFe  will  go  down," 
and  "  We  nill  make  man."  In  all  these  instances,  the 
future  iense  is  used  in  tiie  original,  and  the  reader  is  left  to 
translate  them  indicativclj,  or  imperaiively,  at  his  own 
opiion.  For  my  part,  1  j>eiceive  no  impropriety  in  the 
representation  of  a  monarch,  consulting  with  iiimself,  or  ad- 
dressing pioposals  to  himself.  I  have  no  objection  there- 
fore to  the  translations,  "  Let  us  make  man,"  "  Let  us  go 
down,"  or  "  Let  me  go  down."  If  I\Ir.  Wardlaw  thinks 
diriereiitly,  let  him  be  consistent,  and  fianslate  lilerally,  in 
the  fiUvre  tense,  in  all  these  instances  ;  but  let  him  not 
mislead  his  ailmireis,  and  waste  the  liuie  of  his  opponents, 
by  such  egregious  trifling. 

In  the  three  passages  therefore,  in  which  Jehovah  speaks 
of  himself  in  the  plural  number,  he  is  considered,  not  with- 
out solid  and  irrefragable  reasons,  "  as  using  the  language 
of  Majesty  according  to  the  practice  of  earthly  potentates." 
It  is  agreeable  \o  (he  established  usages  of  speech,  for  a  sin- 
gle person  lo  employ   the  plural  pionouns.   We,   Vs,  Our, 


157 

in  order  to  denofe  his  dignity  and  authority;  whereai?  there 
is  no  rule,  according  to  which  several  persons  can  speak  of 
themselves  by  Ihe  use  of  the  singular  pronouns,  /,  Me^  My. 
Let  Ihe  considerate  and  serious  inquirer  therefore  make  his 
choice  ;  whether  he  will  yield  to  the  authority  of  thousands 
and  tens  of  thousands  of  passages,  which  teach  that  God 
is  only  one  person,  and  understand  the  three  exceplions  to 
the  general  lan^^uage  of  the  Scriptures,  as  phrases  employed 
to  denote  the  Majesty  of  the  speaker;  or  whether  he  will, 
on  the  other  hand,  adhere  to  the  literal  meaning  of  these 
three  passages,  and  consequently  set  at  defiance  those 
thousands  and  tens  of  thousands  of  other  passages,  which 
cannot  by  any  rules  of  grammar  or  canons  of  criticism  be 
reconciled  to  the  orthodox  doctrine  of  a  plurality  of  persons 
in  the  Godhead. 

IV.  In  the  fourth  place,  Mr.  Wardlaw  insists,  that  a  plura- 
lity of  persons  is  indicated  by  the  expression,  which  occurs 
Gen.  iii.  22.  "And  the  Lord  God  said,  'Behold,  the  man 
is  become  as  one  of  us,  to  know  good  and  evilJ'  " 

The  expression,  ^^  one  of  lis,''  evidently  alludes  to  more 
persons,  or  intelligent  beings,  than  one.  But  to  prove,  that 
they  were  persons  in  the  Godhead,  is  impossible.  The 
only  attribute,  which  they  are  aflSrmed  to  possess,  is  the 
knowledge  of  good  and  evil.  If  therefore  it  be  conceded, 
that  there  are  any  intelligent  beings,  inferiour  to  the  Supreme 
Deity,  who  resemble  man  in  the  capacity  of  distinguishing 
between  good  and  evil,  to  them  we  may  reasonably  suppose, 
that  the  allusion  was  made.  That  there  are  such  beings  is 
evident,  among  other  passages,  from  the  fifth  verse  of  this 
chapter,  which  accords  remarkably  with  that  under  review, 
and  directly  points  to  its  true  interpretation  ;  "  In  the  day 
ye  eat  thereof,  then  your  eyes  shall  be  opened,  and  ye  shall 
be  as  gods,  (or  angels,)  knowing  good  and  evil.''  The 
assertion  therefore,    "  the  man  is  become  as  one  of  us," 


158 


signifies,  not  that  the  man  was  become  like  one  of  the  per- 
sons in  the  Godhead,  but  that  he  was  become  like  one  of 
the  persons  in  the  heavenly  hosty  resembling  them  in  the 
knowledge  of  good  and  evil. 

I  conclude  this  Chapter  with  warning  the  reader,  not  to 
assent  without  examination  to  Mr.  Wardlaw's  assertion, 
(p.  15.)  that  he  has  quoted  his  passages,  "as  a  specirnen, 
merely  to  shoiv  what  he  meansJ'''  I  believe  he  could  have 
produced  scarcely  any  more  passages  to  the  same  purpose. 
Indeed  every  attentive  inquirer  must  remark,  how  all  the 
authors,  who  explore  this  field  of  argument,  are  found  to 
pick  up  almost  precisely  the  same  specimens. 


159 


CHAPTER  III. 


EXAMINATION  OF   THE    EVIDENCE    FOR   A   TRINITY    OP   PERSONS   IN   THE 

GODHEAD. 


The  arguments,  considered  in  the  last  Chapter,  are  in- 
tended to  prove  nothing  more  than  a  jjbirality  of  persons 
in  the  Godhead.  Other  arguments  are  brought  to  show, 
that  the  persons  in  the  Godhead  are  three,  or  in  other  words, 
that  they  form  a  Trinity. 

If  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  be,  as  its  advocates  repre- 
sent, one  of  the  most  prominent  articles  of  the  Christian 
faith,  and  if  the  belief  of  it  be  absolutely  necessary  to  sal- 
vation, we  may  expect  to  find  it  insisted  on  by  the  Sacred 
writers  with  remarkable  earnestness  and  frequency,  and 
stated  by  them  in  the  most  decisive  and  unequivocal  lan- 
guage. Especially,  if  the  subject  be  one,  upon  which  our 
ideas  are  necessarily  indistinct,  we  may  hope  that  their 
manner  of  declaring  it  will  be  so  explicit,  as  to  leave  little 
room  for  the  erroneous  conceptions,  to  which  from  its  ex- 
treme obscurity  we  are  peculiarly  liable.  In  order  that  we 
may  judge,  whether  the  Scriptural  evidence  for  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity  is  such  as  the  exigencies  of  this  case  seem 
to  demand,  it  will  be  advisable  to  collect  together  into  one 
view  all  the  passages,  which  are  commonly  supposed  to 
contain  it.  Let  the  candid  reader  therefore  peruse  the 
following  list,  and  seriously  ask  himself,  whether  the  pass^^ 
ges,  here  brought  together,  would  at  once  strike  the  mind 
of  an  unprejudiced  inquirer  with  a  conviction,  that  the  doc- 
trine of  three  persons  in  the  Godhead  is  laid  down  in  the 
Holy  Scriptures. 


160 


A  LIST  OF  ALL  THE  PASSAGES  OF  THE  OLD  AND  NEW  TESTAMENT,  WHICH 
ASSERT,  IN  TERMS  MORE  OR  LESS  DIRECT  AND  EXPBE*-S.  THAT  "IN 
THE  UNITY  OF  THE  GODHEAD  THERE  ARE  THREE  DISTINCT  SUBSISTEN- 
CES OR  PERSONS,  THE  FATHER,  THE  SON,  AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT." 

1.  Num.  vi.  23 — 26.  "  Speak  unto  Aaron  and  unto  his 
sons,  saving,  On  this  wise  ye  shall  bless  the  children  of 
Israel,  saying  unto  them,  The  Lord  bless  thee,  and  keep 
thee;  The  Lord  make  his  face  shine  upon  thee,  and  be 
gracious  unlo  thee  ;  The  Lord  lift  up  his  countenance  upon 
thee,  and  give  thee  peace." 

2.  Isa.  vi.  3,  and  Rev.  iv.  8.  "And  one  cried  unto  ano- 
ther, and  said,    '  Holy,  holy,  holy,  is  the  Lord  of  hosts.'  " 

3.  Isa.  xxxiv.  16.  "  Seek  ye  out  of  the  book  of  the 
Lord,  and  read  ;  no  one  of  these  shall  fail,  none  shall  want 
her  mate :  for  my  mouth  it  hath  commanded,  and  his  spirit 
it  hath  gathered  them." 

4.  Isa.  xlviii.  16.  "And  now  the  Lord  God,  and  his 
spirit,  hath  sent  me." 

5.  Mat.  xxviii.  19.  "Go  ye  therefore,  and  teach  all 
nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of 
the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit." 

6.  2  Cor.  xlii.  14.  "The  grace  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  and  the  love  of  God,  and  the  communion  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  be  with  you  all." 

7.  Rev.  i.  4,  5.  "Grace  be  unto  you  and  peace,  from 
him,  who  is,  and  who  was,  and  who  is  to  come ;  and  from 
the  seven  spirits,  which  are  before  his  throne  ;  and  from 
Jesus  Christ,  who  is  the  faithful  witness,  and  the  first  be- 
gotten of  the  dead,  and  the  prince  of  the  kings  of  the 
earth." 


161 

*'  It  is  reasonable  to  expect,"  says  Mr.  Wardlaw  at  the 
beginning  of  his  eighth  Discourse,  "  that  those  doctrines, 
which  form  the  leading  articles  of  any  system,  should  be 
plainly  stated  in  the  book,  which  professes  to  make  that 
system  known."  In  his  Preface  also,  he  lays  down 
the  same  indisputable  maxim,  that,  concerning  the  object 
of  worship  and  other  subjects  of  equal  importance,  the 
language  of  Revelation  must  be  explicit,  clear,  precise, 
and  determinate.  Where  then,  I  ask,  is  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  stated  in  terras  explicit,  clear,  precise,  and  deter- 
minate ?  Where  is  the  passage,  which,  if  presented  to  any 
person,  not  previously  trained  up  and  instructed  in  the 
doctrine,  would  suggest  to  his  mind  the  notion  of  three 
distinct  intelligent  agents,  equal  and  infinite  in  every  Divine 
perfection  ?  I  cannot  conceive  how  any  m;  n  of  modesty 
can  maintain,  that  the  passages,  just  cited,  answer  to  this 
description.  Mr.  Wardlaw  himself,  whatever  he  may  pro- 
fess in  words,  admits  in  fact,  that  the  doctrine  is  only 
alluded  to  in  these  passages,  or  may  be  inferred  from  them. 
For,  instead  of  leaving  them  to  speak  for  themselves  and 
make  their  own  impression  upon  the  minds  of  readers,  hav- 
ing certainly  in  general  a  sufficient  bias  towards  his  inter- 
pretation of  them,  he  has  devoted  several  pages  to  the 
illustration  of  that  single  text,  which  he  affirms  to  be  clear 
and  decisive  above  all  the  rest.  (See  p.  16 — 18.  266 — 
•269.) 

With  respect  to  the  first  two  first  passages  in  the  list,  (the 
benediction  pronounced  by  the  Hebrew  priests,  and  the 
solemn  praise  uttered  by  the  Seraphim,)  Mr.  Wardlaw 
(p.  293.)  only  produces  them  as  containing  "  a  tacit  refer- 
ence to  the  trinity  of  persons  in  the  Godhead."  But  how 
was  it  possible,  that  this  tacit  reference  could  be  perceived, 
before  the  doctrine  was  clearly  declared?  Can  we  imagine 
a  more  preposterous  inversion  of  ideas  and  evidences,  tuan 

22 


1 


161 

that,  which  is  aftribiited  to  the  Author  of  Revelation,  by 
supposing  the  references  to  a  doctrine  tocor)ie  first  it)  order, 
and  the  explicit  stateuientsof  i(  afterwards  ?  However  Trin- 
itarians may  surmount  this  difficulty,  they  must  remember, 
that  an  allusion  to  a  doctrine  is  not  a  proof  of  i1.     If  the 
doctrine   of  the  Trinity    were   previously   established,  we 
might  perhaps  not  irrationally  presume,  that  the  three  per- 
sons of  (he  Godhead  were  referred  to  in  the  threefold  praise 
and  benediction:  but  we  cannot  make  such  an   application, 
until  we  know,  that  there  are  three  persons  in  the  Godhead. 
The  passas^es  in   question  may   be   easily    explained  upon 
another  principle.     In  all  languages,  and  especially  in  such 
simple  languages   as  the    Hebrew,    it  is  usual    to  repeat  a 
word  or  an  idea,  merely    for  the    purpose  of  impressing   it 
more  strongly   upon  the  mind.     Agreeably   to  this  general 
practice,  it  is  a  rule  of  Hebrew  syntax,  that  the  snperlalive 
deorree  is  denoted  by  the  repetition  of  the  adjective.     The 
The  same   sentiment,    which   is  expressed   by   the  words, 
*'  Holy,  holy,  holy,  is  the  Lord  of  hosts,"  might  be  signi- 
fied by  saying,  "  Thrice  holy  is  the  Lord  of  hosts ;"  or 
that  *'  Jehovah  of  hosts  is  exceedingly  pure  and  holy  above 
all  beings."     Other  examples  of  a  threefold  repetition,  era- 
ployed  to  give  intensity  to  the  signification,  are   presented 
in  the  following  passages;  Jer.  xxii.  29.  "  O  earth,  earthy 
earth,  hear  the  word  of  the  Lord."  Ex.  xxi.  27.     "  I  will 
overturn,    overturn,    overturn  it."  Rev.  viii.  13.      "  Wo, 
no,  wo,  to  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth." 

The  two  next  passages  upon  the  list  are  produced  by 
Mr.  Wardlaw,  not  as  mere  allusions,  but  as  '■'■  proofs^^  of 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  (p.  15.)  Nevertheless  he  adds 
no  remaiks  to  show  how  they  prove  his  doctrine,  nor  can 
any  expressions  in  my  humble  judgment  be  more  irrevelant. 
What  Mr.  VVardlaw's  arguments  from  these  passages  wotdd 
be,  I  cannot  conjecture,  and  therefore  cannot  answer  tJiem.. 


I 


;I  shall  only  remark  concerning  the  former  of  these  passages, 
(Isa.  xxxiv.  16.)  that  the  pronoun  my,  which  he  has  piinied 
in  small  capitals,  and  upon  which  tjjerefore  1  presume  his 
argument  depends,  as  it  appears  to  me,  has  nothing  corres- 
ponding to  if  in  the  original  Hebrew  ;  and  concerning  the 
latter,  (Isa.  xlviii.  16.)  that  the  expression,  "  God  hath  sent 
me,"  cannot,  without  an  almost  profane  violation  of  com- 
mon sense,  be  considered  as  the  speech  of  God  himself, 
but  proves,  that  in  this  verse,  as  well  as  in  the  beginning  of 
the  nex:,  the  Prophet  Isaiah  speaks  in  his  own  person. 

We  come  then  to  t!ie  passage,  upon  which  Mr.  Ward- 
law  lavs  the  greatest  stress  as  a  clear  and  decisive  proof  of 
the  Trinitarian  doctrine,  (p.  16—18.  -266—269.)  Matt, 
xxviii.  <9.  "  Go  ye  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations,  bap- 
tizing them  in  the  name  of  the  Fathei',  and  of  the  Sou,  and 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  ;"  or,  liferaJly  and  properly,  "  into  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit." 
He  argues,  that  this  passage  proves  the  Son  and  the  Holy 
Spirit  to  be  intelligent  agents,  equal  with  tiie  Father,  be- 
cause they  are  here  associated  with  him,  and  because  they 
are  represented  as  equally  with  him  the  objects  of  supreme 

wo  r  fillip. 

To  the  following  remarks,  intended  to  show  the  true 
meaning  of  the  passage,  I  crave  the  attention  of  the  reader. 

Every  one,  who  has  accurately  observed  the  phraseology 
of  the  Scriptures,  knows,  that  "  the  name''  of  a  person  is 
an  expression  often  used  to  signify  the  person  himself.  As 
an  example  I  refer  to  the  beginning  of  the  20lh  Psuln; 
"  The  Lord  hear  thee  in  the  day  of  trouble  ;  the  name  of 
the  God  of  Jacob  defend  thee."  It  is  evident,  that  (he 
expression,  "  the  Lord,"  in  the  first  clause,  corresponds 
to  "  the  name  of  the  God  of  Jacob"  in  the  second  clause, 
and  that  "  the  name  of  the  God  of  Jacob"  signifies  the  God 
of  Jacob  himself.     The  word  Name,  in  such  cases,  ap- 


164 

pears  to  be  used  only  as  a  title  of  respect,  as  we  say  in 
English  "  the  king's  majesh/,^'  meaning  the  king  himself. 
This  shows,  thai  no  particular  stress  ought  to  be  laid  upon 
the  use  of  the  word  "  wftwe"  in  the  passage  under  consi- 
deration. The  meaning  of  the  verse  is  the  same  as  if  it  bad 
been  said,  "  Go  ye  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations,  baptiz- 
ing them  into  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit.*' 
We  find  accordingly,  that  the  word  "  name^^  is  sometimes 
employed,  and  sometimes  omitted,  in  this  connexion,  with- 
out m  tierially  altering  the  sense.  In  the  book  of  Acts,  we 
read  of  persons  being  "  baptized  into  the  name  of  the  Lord 
Jesus:  (Acts.  viii.  16.  xix.  5.)  but  in  the  Epistles  of  Piu»l 
they  are  simply  stated  to  be  "  baptized  into  Christ."  (See 
Rom.  vi.  3.     Gal.  iii..2r.)* 

It  is  clear  therefore,  that  to  be  "  baptized  into  a  person 
or  thing,"  and  to  be  "  baptized  into  the  name  of  that  per- 
son or  thing,"  are  expressions  of  the  same  import.  The 
only  question  relates  to  the  signification  of  these  two  phrases. 
Does  the  expression,  "  to  be  baptized  into  a  person  or 
thing,  or  into  the  name  of  a  person  or  thing,"  signify,  that 
that  person  or  thing  is  made  an  object  of  worship,  or  only 
that  it  is  made  a  subject  of  faith  ?  The  former  interpreta- 
tion is  advanced  to  Mr.  Wardlaw,  and  rests  upon  his  un- 
supported assertion :  the  latter  is  adopted  by  the  Unita- 
rians, and  is  established  by  the  following  proofs. 

In  1  Cor.  X.  1,  2.  St.  Paul  uses  these  words;  "More- 
over, brethren,  I  would  not,  that  ye  should  be  ignorant,  how 
that  all  our  fathers  were  under  the  cloud,  and  all  passed 
through  the  sea,  and  were  ail  baptized  into  Moses  in  a 
cloud  and  in  the  sea."     What  is  meant  by  Paul's  assertion, 

*  Those,  who  wish  for  further  illustrations,  may  consult  Schleusuer's 
Lexicon,  v.  BaTrr/fai  and  Ovo/j.tt.  This  immensely  learned  critick,  though 
a  Trinitarian,  adopts  the  interpretation  of  Mat.  xxviii.  19,  which  I 
have  defended. 


165 

that  the  Israelites  were  all  baptized  into  Moses  ?  Does  it 
signify,  that  they  avowed  Moses  to  be  the  object  of  their 
worship,  or  that  they  contemplated  him  as  a  subject  of  their 
faith  ?  Undoubtedly  the  latter  interpretation  is  preferable* 
The  Apostle  means,  that,  when  (hey  passed  through  the 
cloud  and  the  sea,  ihey  made  a  profession  of  their  belief 
in  Moses. 

Again,  the  Apostle  Paul  in  the  same  Epistle,  the  1st 
chapter,  the  12th  and  following  verses,  expresses  his  ap- 
prehensions lest  any  of  them  should  say,  that  he  had  bap- 
tized persons  into  his  own  name.  "  Every  one  of  you  saith, 
I  am  of  Paul,  and  I  of  Apollos,  and  I  of  Cephas,  and  I  of 
Christ.  Is  Christ  divided  ?  Was  Paul  crucified  for  you  ? 
or  ivere  ye  baptised  in  the  name  of  Panl .''  I  thank  God, 
that  I  baptized  none  of  you  but  Crispus  and  Gains,  lest  they 
should  say,  that  I  had  baptised  in  mine  own  nume.''  The 
Apostle  did  not  surely  mean  to  indicate  his  aversion  to  their 
professing  by  baptism,  that  they  regarded  him  as  the  object 
of  their  worship.  When  he  asks,  "  Were  ye  baptized  into 
the  name  of  Paul?"  he  does  not  mean  to  decline  divine 
honours ;  he  intends  to  remind  them  only,  that  by  their 
baptism  they  professed  faith  in  Christy  and  not  faith  in 
Paul,  and  that  they  ought  therefore  to  submit  to  the  autho- 
rity of  Christ  alone,  and  not  to  the  authority  of  Paul. 

I  shall  only  refer  to  another  passage  in  illustration  of  this 
subject.  Rom.  vi.  8.  "  Know  ye  not,  that  so  many  of  us 
as  were  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ,  were  baptized  into  his 
death  ?"  This  verse  appears  to  me  to  decide  the  question 
pioposed,  vis.  Whether  the  phrase,  "  being  baptized  into 
a  person  or  thing,"  signifies,  that  that  person  or  thing  is 
made  by  baptism  an  object  of  worship,  or  a  subject  of 
faith  ?  According  to  the  former  interpretation,  the  Apostle 
means,  "  Know  ye  not,  that  so  many  of  us  as  professed  by 
baptism,  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  object  of  our  worship, 


166' 

professed  by  baptism,  that  his  death  is  the  object  of  our 
worship  ?"  If  this  absurd  sense  be  inevilable  acconiing  to 
the  one  method,  let  us  fry  how  the  other  inlerprelalion 
suits  :  "  Know  ye  not,  thai  so  many  of  us  as  professed  by 
baptism,  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  subject  of  our  faith,  pio- 
fessed  by  baptism,  that  his  death  is  the  subject  of  our 
faith?"  This  explanation  is  clear  and  rational.  Il  ought 
consequently  to  be  preferred  to  the  other,  which  is  non- 
sensical. 

It  appears  therefore,  that  to  be  baptized  into  a  person  or 
thing,  or  into  the  name  of  a  person  or  thing,  was  to  avow 
faith  m  that  person  or  thing,  and  not  to  make  it  the  object 
of  worship.  We  are  thus  enabled  to  determine  the  true 
sense  of  the  appointed  formula,  which  is,  "  Go,  and  make 
disciples  of  all  the  nations,  baptizn.g  Jhem  as  a  (esliniony 
of  their  belief  in  the  Father,  and  the  Son,  and  the  Holy 
Spirit." 

The  passage  is  explained  in  this  manner,  not  only  by  all 
Unitarian  exposilors,  but  by  the  learned  and  upright  Dr. 
W  hitby  in  his  Paraphrase  ;  "  Go  ye  therefore,  anu  leach 
all  nations,  baptizing  Ihem  in  the  nisme  {or,  into  the  belief) 
of  the  Father,  and  of  ihe  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghosl :" 
and  the  amiable  Archbishop  TiHolson,  in  his  Sermon  upon 
this  text,  (V.  ii.  fol.  p.  .512,  513.)  though  he  consiuers 
the  words  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spiril,  as  denoliiig  tlie 
three  persons  of  the  Trinilj,  nevertheless  represents  the 
rite  of  baptism  "into  the  name  of  the  Father  and  of  the 
Son  and  of  the  Holy  Spiril,"  merely  as  a  piofession  of 
faith  in  the  Christian  religion,  the  principal  doctrines  of 
which  relate  to  these  three  subjects. 

That  the  appointed  form  of  baptism  was  intended  to  ex- 
press faith  in  these  as  the  three  chief  points  of  Christianity, 
is  further  ap[)arenl  from  the  various  Confessions  of  faith, 
em[)loyed  in   the  primitive  Church,  among  which  the  best 


167 

known  is  that,  commonly  called  "  the  Apostles'  Creed." 
Tlie  articles  of  belief,  contained  in  these  simple  formulaiies, 
Tvei  e  always  arranged  under  the  three  heads  of  what  relates 
to  the  Father,  to  the  Son,  and  to  the  Holy  Spirit. 

Lastly,  the  sense,  in  which  our  Lord's  direction  was 
understood  by  his  earliest  disciples,  is  still  more  clearly 
manifested  by  the  original  method  of  administering  the  rite 
of  baptism.  This  is  sufficiently  explained  by  the  following 
quoiation  from  the  baptismal  service  of  the  Church  of 
England,  which  here  agrees  upon  the  whole  with  the  prac^ 
tice  of  the  primitive  ages. 

"  Then  shall  the  priest  demand  of  each  of  the  persons 
to  be  baptised,  severally,  these  Questions  following' 

Q.  Dost  thou  renounce  the  devil  and  all  his  works,  the 
Tain  pomp  and  glory  of  the  world,  with  all  covetous  desiies 
of  the  same,  and  the  carnal  desires  of  the  flesh,  so  that  thou 
wilt  not  follow,  nor  be  led  by  them  ? 

A.   I  renounce  them  all. 

Q.  Dost  thou  believe  in  God  the  Father  Almightj, 
Maker  of  Heaven  and  earth  ? 

And  in  Jesus  Christ  his  only  begotten  Son  our  Lord  ? 
And  that  he  was  conceived  by  the  Holy  Ghost ;  born  of 
the  Virgin  Mary  ;  that  he  suffered  under  Pontius  Pilate, 
was  crucified,  dead,  and  buried  ;  that  he  went  down  into 
hell,  and  also  did  rise  again  the  third  day  ;  that  he  ascended 
into  heaven,  and  sitteth  at  the  right  hand  of  God  the  Father 
Almighty  ;  and  from  thence  shall  come  again  at  the  end  of 
the  world,  to  judge  the  quick  and  the  dead  ? 

And  dost  thou  believe  in  the  Holy  Ghost  ;  the  holy 
Catholick  Church ;  the  Communion  of  Saints  ;  the  Remis- 
sion of  sins  ;  the  Resurrection  of  the  flesh  ;  and  everlast- 
ing life  after  death? 

A.  AH  this  I  steadfastly  believe. 


168 

Q.  Wilt  Ihou  be  baptized  in  this  faith  ? 

A.  That  is  my  tiesire. 

Q.  Wilt  thou  then  obediently  keep  God's  holy  will 
and  commandriients,  and  walk  in  the  same  all  the  days  of 
tbj  life  ? 

A.  I  will  endeavour  so  to  do,  God  being  my  helper."*^ 

Thus,  by  means  of  questions  proposed  by  the  Bishop, 
and  answers  returned  by  the  Catechumen,  the  latter,  before 
being  immersed  in  water,  avowed  his  faith  in  the  doctrines 
of  the  Christian  Religion,  first,  concerning  the  Father, 
secondly,  concerning  the  Son,  and  thirdly,  concerning  the 
holy  spirit,  at  the  same  time  professing  his  resolution  to  live 
by  the  grace  of  God  agreeably  to  these  convictions.  This 
is  aii,  that  was  intended  or  understood,  by  being  baptized 
"  into  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the 
holy  spirit." 

If  therefore  Mr.  Wardlaw  would  have  taken  the  trouble 
to  inquire  into  the  application  of  this  phraseology  in  other 
parts  of  Scripture,  and  into  the  sense  attributed  to  our 
Lord's  words  by  all  the  primitive  Christians,  he  might  have 
spared  his  ridicule  (p.  278,  279.)  of  Dr.  Lardner's  most 
excellent  paraphrase  of  this  passage,!  and  his  complaints 
against  a  form,  as  he  says,  "so  straoge  and  enigmatical." 

Having  now  shown  the  true  sense  of  our  Saviour's  words, 
I  ask.  What  trace  do  they  contain  of  the  doctrine  of  three 

*  See  "  The  Administration  of  baptism  to  such  as  are  of  riper  years." 
Also  Cave's  Primitive  Christianity,  ch.  x.  p.  2U0.  and  Westein's  Note 
on  Mat.  xxviii.  19. 

f  "Go  ye  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  That  is, 
•  Go  ye  therefore  into  all  the  world,  and  teach,  or  disciple  all  nations, 
baptizing  them  into  the  profession  of  faith  in,  and  an  obligation  to  obey 
the  doctrine  tanght  by  Christ,  with  authority  from  God  the  Father, 
and  confirmed  by  the  Holy  Ghost.'  "  Lardner's  Works,  Vol.  xi.  p.  147. 


169 

persons  in  one  God  ?  We,  Unitarians,  believe  in  llie  Father, 
who  is  (he  only  true  God,  and  who  gave  a  revelation  of  his 
wi!l  to  his  creatures  :  we  believe  in  (he  Son,  the  messenger 
of  (he  Father's  grace,  the  bearer  of  these  glorious  tidings  : 
we  believe  in  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  Divine  power  or  influetice, 
by  which  Jesus  Christ  and  (he  Aposdes  were  enabled  to 
work  miracles,  to  confirm  the  truth  of  the  doctrines  which 
they  taught. 

The  sixth  passage  upon  the  list  is  the  devout  and  bene- 
volent wish  of  Paul  at  the  conclusion  of  his  Second  Epistle 
to  the  Corinthians.  "  The  grace  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
and  the  love  of  God,  and  (he  communion  of  the  holy  spirit, 
be  with  you  all."  Upon  this  passage  Mr.  Wardlaw  lays 
great  stress  :  p.  17,  18,  120,  141,  290,  291,  292,  330. 

But  what  is  the  plain  and  obvious  meaning  of  the  Apos- 
tle's words  ?  "  The  grace  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  be 
with  you  all."  With  this  benediction  St.  Paul  concludes 
many  of  his  episdes.  What  does  it  signify  ?  Evidently, 
"  May  you  enjoy  the  favour  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  by 
being  the  objects  of  his  protection  and  blessing." — "  The 
love  of  God  be  with  you  all."  This  implies,  "  May  you, 
by  a  pa(ient  perseverance  in  well-doing,  continue  to  be  the 
obiects  of  the  peculiar  approbation  and  love  of  God." — 
"  Tlie  communion  of  the  holy  spirit  be  with  you  all."  Is 
not  the  meaning  of  this  phrase  equally  apparent  ?  "  May  you 
all  partake  of  the  holy  spirit ;"  (hat  is,  "  May  you  all 
share  the  gifts  and  manifest  the  disposilions,  which  arise 
from  the  extraordinary  influence  of  God  upon  the  Members 
of  the  Christian  Church."  VV^hat  vestige  have  we  here  of 
the  doctrine  of  three  persons  in  one  God  ?  Paul  only 
expresses  in  one  sentence  three  devout  wishes  for  his 
fellow  Christians,  one  relating  to  the  favour  of  Christ,  the 

23 


170 

other  the  love  of  God,  and  the  thu'd    to  their  participation 
in  spiritual  gifts  and  blessings. 

Mr.  Wardlaw  endeavours  to  press  this  most  plain,  beau- 
tiful, and  interesting  benediction  into  the  service  of  the 
Trinitarian  system  by  remarking,  that  "  it  includes  in  it  a 
prayer."  Doubtless,  in  the  mind  of  the  habitually  pious 
man,  almost  every  wish  is  accompanied  with  a  silent  peti- 
tion. But  to  whom  is  this  petition  addressed  ?  By  ail, 
who  entertain  just  views  of  Scripture  truth,  it  is  addressed 
to  the  one  true  God,  our  Heavenly  Father,  who  is  able  to 
do  for  us  above  all  that  we  can  ask  or  think.  We  may 
therefore  reasonably  consider  the  words  of  the  Apostle  as 
implying  not  only  a  benevolent  wish,  but  also  a  devout 
prayer  to  the  Father  of  mercies ;  that  the  disciples  at  Corinth 
might  enjoy  the  favourable  regards  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  the  head  of  the  Church ;  that  they  might  continue 
to  be  approved  and  beloved  by  God  ;  and  that  they  might 
possess,  in  common  with  the  whole  body  of  Christians,  a 
portion  of  the  holy  spirit. 

Mr.  Wardlaw  insists,  (p.  17.)  that,  because  Jesus  Christ, 
God,  and  the  holy  spirit,  are  mentioned  in  three  wishes,  or 
prayers,  which  are  "precisely  the  same  in  form,"  therefore 
they  are  equally  the  objects  of  prayer.  As  I  am  expected 
to  bring  a  passage  of  Scripture  to  refute  every  criticism  of 
my  opponent,  however  groundless  and  unreasonable,  I  refer 
to  the  conclusion  of  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  ; 
"  The  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  be  with  you;  7)it/ 
love  be  with  you  all  in  Christ  Jesus."  Here  we  find  coup- 
led together  in  the  same  manner,  "  the  grace  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,"  and  "the  love  of  Paid."  If  therefore  the 
conclusion  of  the  Second  Epistle,  in  which  Jesus  Christ, 
God,  and  the  holy  spirit,  are  mentioned  in  conjunction, 
proves  the  Divinity  of  Jesus  Christ  and  of  the  holy  spirit, 
the  conclusion  of  the  First  Epistle,  in  which  Paul  is  in  like 


171 

manner  associated  with  Jesus   Christ,  proves  the  Divinity 
of  Paul. 

Instead  of  giving  any  support,  even  in  the  way  of  remote 
alhision  or  inference,  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  this 
passage  bears  directly  against  it.  Three  distinct  beings 
are  mentioned  in  the  benediction.  One  of  them  is  called 
"God."  Since  therefore  we  know,  that  "there  is  none 
other  God  but  one,"  it  necessarily  follows,  that  the  two 
other  beings  are  not  God.  If  all  be  equally  God,  why  is 
the  title  applied  to  one  of  them  only? 

"  Tiie  communion  of  the  holy  spirit  be  with  you  all" 
implies,  that  "  the  holy  spirit"  does  not  in  this  instance 
signify  God,  or  any  person.  What  can  possibly  be  intend- 
ed by  the  communion  of  GodJ*  Is  God  divided?  Can  we 
partake  of  God,  or  of  any  person  ?  No  ;  but  we  may  partake 
o(  powers,  energies,  and  influences,  we  may  enjoy  a  commun- 
ion of  spiritual  gifts.  As  in  Phil.  iii.  10.  "  the  communion 
of  the  sufferings  of  Christ"  means  a  participation  in  his 
sufferings,  so  here,  and  in  Phil.  ii.  1.  "  the  communion  of 
the  spirit"  signifies  a  participation  in  spiritual  gifts  and 
influences.  We  may  enjoy  a  communion  of  gifts  with 
persons;  but  a  participation  of  a  person  is  an  idea,  which 
cannot  enter  the  mind.  So  far  as  my  knowledge  of  Greek, 
and  a  careful  examination  of  all  the  passages,  in  which  the 
word  {Koiva>n<t)  occurs,  enable  me  to  judge,  I  am  perfectly 
satisfied,  that  this  expression  of  St.  Paul  cannot  be  inter- 
preted in  any  other  way  than  that,  which  I  have  stated. 

The  only  remaining  passage,  which  is  supposed  to  incul- 
cate the  doctrine  of  three  Persons  in  one  God,  is  the  bene- 
diction at  the  beginning  of  the  Revelation  of  John.  Rev.  i. 
4,  5.  "  Grace  be  unto  you  and  peace,  from  him,  who  is,  and 
who  was,  and  who  is  to  come ;  and  from  the  seven  spirits, 
who  are  before  his  throne  ;  and  from  Jesus  Christ,  who  is 
the  faithful  witness,  and  the  first  begotten  of  tlie  dead,  and 
the  prince  of  the  kings  of  the  earth.' 


>> 


172 

"  The  seven  spirits  of  God,"  says  Mr.  Wardlaw,  (p. 
290.)  "  is  evideiifly  an  emblematical  expression  for  the 
Holi/ Spirii.^^  But  many  of  the  most  emineni  Trinilarian 
criticks  have  expressed  a  contrary  opinion.  The  descrip- 
tion, "He  who  is,  and  who  was,  and  who  is  to  come," 
points  to  the  one  True  God,  the  Father  ;  the  seven  spirits 
are  said  to  be  "  before  His  throne,"  which  denotes  their 
inferiority  to  Him,  and  altogether  excludes  Mr.  Wardiaw's 
interpretation.  Besides,  we  might  ask  with  far  greater  pro- 
priety than  in  any  of  those  cases,  in  which  Mr.  Wardlaw 
lias  raised  the  objection  against  Unitarian  criticisms.  If  St. 
John  meant  to  express  a  wish  of  favour  from  the  Holy 
Spirit,  why  did  he  not  say  so  ?  "  Why  must  we  so  often 
impute  to  the  New  Testament  writers  language  so  unnatural 
and  affected  ; — and  especially  in  cases,  where  the  simpler 
expressions  would  not  only  be  equally  correct  in  themselves, 
but  free  at  the  same  time  of  any  tendency  to  mislead."  p. 
286.  Lastly,  allowing  it  to  be  as  "evident"  as  Mr.  Ward- 
law  asserts,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  meant  by  the  seven 
spirits  before  the  throne  of  God,  a  wish  of  favour  from  the 
Holy  Spirit  and  from  Jesus  Christ  would  only  denote,  that 
they  have  the  power  of  bestowing  that  favour,  a  power,  as 
we  learn  from  other  partsof  Scripture,  conferred  upon  them 
by  God  the  Father. 

Before  closing  the  consideration  of  this  branch  of  evi' 
dence,  it  is  necessary  for  me  to  take  notice  of  the  manner, 
in  which  Mr.  Wardlaw  has  introduced  his  remarks  upon  the 
passages  of  the  New  Testament,  which  he  supposes  to  make 
mention  of  the  three  persons  in  the  Godhead.  Declining  to 
enter  largely  into  the  proofs,  which  might  be  derived  from 
the  Jewish  Scriptures,  he  determines  (p.  15)  to  "  go  for- 
ward to  those  of  the  New  Testament,  proceeding,  at  the 
same  time,  with  regard  to  thim  also,  on  the  sawe principle  i 
^electing  only  one  or  two  of  the  most  prominent  passages  ;" 


173 

and  he  afterwards  savs,  "  /  shall  confine  myself  at  present 
to  a  few  remarks  on  trvo  passages  oiily."'  {viz.  Maf.  xxviii. 
19.  2  Cor.  xiii.  14.)  From  this  language  persons,  not  pre- 
viously acquainted  with  the  subject,  would  conclude,  that 
these  two  passages  are  only  stro7ig  and  clear  examples  of 
the  proofs,  which  might  be  produced  at  great  length  and  in 
great  numbers.  It  is  my  duty  to  inform  the  reader,  that 
these  two  are  almost,  if  not  altogether,  the  only  passages, 
upon  which  Trinitarians  have  in  general  laid  any  stress  as 
containing  the  doctrine  of  three  Persons  in  one  God.* 

*  See  dissertation  at  the  end  of  the  volume. 


174 


CHAPTER  IV.  ,1 

OF   THE    DOCTRINE   OF   CHRIST'S    DIVINE    AND    HUMAN    NATURES.  \] 

,'l 
'l 

In  bis  first  discourse,  Mr.  Wardlaw  discusses  those  pas-       j 
sages,  in  which  "  all  the  three  persons  of  the  Godhead  are 
introduced  together,"   (p.  29.)   and  which  he  considers  as 
*'  proofs  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  in  general."   (p.  18.) 
He  proceeds,  in  the  next  place,  to  "prove  distinclly  the 
Divinily  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;" 
and  he   observes,  that  "  the   evidence  in   support   of  the 
general  doctrine  is  not  properly  closed,  till  all  Ihis  mass  of 
separate  proof  has  been  adduced  and  illustrated."     1  agree 
wifh  him,  that  all  the  passages,  which  contain  evidences  of 
the  Divinity  of  Christ  and  of  the  Holy   Spirit,  bear  upon 
the  subject.     For,  if  Jesus  Christ  and  the  Holy  Spirit  be 
two  intelligent  beings,  each  distinct  from  God   the  Father, 
and  if  each  of  theii  be  proved  to  be  infinite  in  all  perfec- 
tions, it  will  necessarily  follow,  that  there  exist  three  infinite 
and  all-perfect  minds,  or,  in  other  words,  three  Persons  in 
the  Godhead.     It  would  however  be  impossible  to  reconcile 
this  fact,  supposing    it  proved,  with  a  belief  in  one  God 
only;  nor  ought  we  to  be  satisfied  with  any   attempts  to 
establish  a  doctrine  so  obscure  and  so  important  as  that  of 
the  Trinity,  merely  by  showing,  that  the  Scriptures  assert 
in  separate  places,  the  Divinity  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  as  well  as  the  Divinity  of  the  Father. 

Before  we  begin  to  examine  the  evidence  for  the  ortho- 
dox opinion  concerning  the  nature  of  Christ,  it  is  necessary 
to  know  what  that  opinion  is.  Nothing  could  indicate 
greater  irreverence  for  a  question  of  such  vast  importance, 
than  to  argue  and  dispute  without  even  understanding  what 


175 

we  wish  to  prove.  It  is  therefore  a  matter  of  no  small  sat- 
isfaction, that  Mr.  Wardlaw's  statements  are  clear  and 
intelligible.  He  lays  down  his  doctrine  in  the  following 
terms  :  (p.  31.)  "that  Jesus  Christ  is  truly  God;  that  in 
his  person  there  subsisted,  when  he  was  on  earth,  and  still 
subsists  a  union  of  the  Divine  and  Human  Natures."  It 
appears  also  from  (he  general  train  of  language  and  argument, 
pursued  through  his  volume,  that,  while  he  believes  the 
man  Christ  Jesus  to  have  been  finite,  created,  mortal,  depen- 
dent, exposed  to  suffering,  and  limited  in  power  and  know- 
ledge, he  also  believes,  that  this  same  person,  being  God  as 
well  as  man,  was  infinite,  uncreated,  immortal,  independent, 
incapable  of  suffering,  omnipotent,  and  omniscient. 

All  Trinitarians  believe,  that  Jesus  Christ  was  but  one 
person,  although  possessing  two  natures.  Their  doctrine 
is,  that  one  of  the  three  infinite  minds  in  the  Godhead  was 
so  united  to  a  human  soul,  as  to  form  one  intelligent  being, 
retaining  the  properties  both  of  the  God  and  of  the  Man. 

By  the  Nature  of  any  thing  we  always  mean  its  Qnali- 
ties.    When  therefore  it  is  said,  that  Jesus  Christ  possesses 
both  a  Divine  and  a  Human  Nature,  it  must  be  meant,  that 
he  possesses  both  the  qualities  of  God  and  the  qualities  of 
Man.     But,   if  we  consider  what   these  qualities  are,  we 
perceive  them  to  be  totally  incompatible  with  one  another. 
The  qualities  of  God  are   eternity,   independence,  immii- 
lahility,  entire  and  jy^rpetnal  exemption  from  pain   and 
death,  omniscience,  and  omnipotence.     The  qualities  of 
Man   are,   derived    existence,    dependence,     liability    to 
change,  to   suffering,  and  to    dissolution,    comparative 
weakness  and  ignorance.     To  maintain  therefore,  that  the 
same  mind  is  endued  both  with  a  Divine  and  a  Human  na- 
ture, is  to  maintain,  that  the  same  mind  is  both  created  and 
uncreated,  both  finite  and  infinite,  both  dependent  and  in- 
dependent, both  changeable  and  unchangeable,  both  mortal 
and  immortal,  boili  susceptible  of  paimnd  incapable  of  if, 


176 


both  able  to  do  all  things  and  not  able,  both  acqitainied 
with  all  things  and  not  acquainted  with  them,  both  igno- 
rant of  certain  subjects  and  possessed  of  the  most  intimate 
knowledge  of  them.  If  it  be  not  certain,  that  such  a  . 
doctrine  as  this  is  false,  there  is  no  certainty  upon  any  sub- 
ject. It  is  vain  to  call  it  a  mystery ;  it  is  an  absurd'ty,  it  is 
din  impossibility.  According  to  7)??/ ideas  of  propriety  and 
duty,  by  assenting  to  it,  I  should  culpably  abuse  those  fa- 
culties of  understanding,  which  have  been  given  nje  to  be 
employed  in  distinguishing  between  right  and  wiong,  truth 
and  errour.  According  to  the  maxims,  laid  down  as  the 
guides  of  our  inquiry,  and  acknowledged  by  Mr.  Wardiaw 
as  fundamental  principles,  (see  P.  I.  ch.  4.)  this  doctrine 
could  not  be  established  even  by  the  clearest  declarations 
of  the  Scriptures.  For  the  testimony  of  the  Scriptures 
would  not  prove  it  to  be  true ;  on  the  contrary,  its  occur- 
rence in  the  Scriptures  would  prove  them  to  be  false. 

Upon  this  subject  Mr.  Wardiaw  expresses  himself  in 
distinct  language,  and  appears  to  have  clear,  though  incon- 
sistent, ideas.  We  will  however  suppose,  that,  when  he 
calls  the  opinion  of  the  Divine  and  Human  Natures  of  Jesus 
Christ  a  mystery,  he  means,  that  we  cannot  make  it  "  the 
subject  of  fixed  thought,  or  of  distinct  conception."  (p.  32.) 
The  doctrine  then  becomes  like  sounding  brass,  or  as  a 
tinkling  cymba!  ;  and  we  cannot  conceive  how  anj' benefit 
can  arise  from  listening  to  sound  wilhout  sense,  and  assent- 
ing to  words  wilhout  ideas.  Nevertheless,  if  we  find  in 
the  Scriptures  the  unintelligible  proj)osilion,  that  "  in  the 
person  of  Christ  Jesus,  a  Divine  is  united  with  a  Human 
nature,"  or  if  this  assertion  be  uttered  in  these  terms,  and 
declared  to  express  a  truth,  by  an  accredited  Prophet,  we 
shall  give  our  implicit  assent,  presuming  that  it  is  under- 
stood by  the  Prophet  who  pronounces,  the  Apostle  who 
writes,  or  the  God  who  dictates  it. 


< 


177 

Such  wouild  be  the  proper  mode  of  freafiiig  this  doclrine, 
considered  as  miin!eil'r:;iblt;.  But  Mr.  Wardlawhas  not  [irovi- 
deJ  ibriteven  this  refuge.  His  statement  of  it  is  such  as  <o  ren- 
der it  both  inteliigibie,  and  palpabi}  absurd.  As  iioweverin 
the  case  of  the  seif-contraciictory  proposition,  that  "three 
infinite  Minds  are  on!}  one  infinite  Mind,"  so,  in  the  present 
instance,  I  shall  explain  the  passages,  produced  to  prove 
the  Supreme  Divinity  of  Christ,  in  order  to  alford  the  fullest 
satisfaction  foihe  ingenuous  enquirer,  but  chiefly  to  rescue 
the  Dvine  Unity  from  violation,  and  the  Scriptures  from 
contempt. 

In  the  First  of  the  three  Discourses,  intended  ^o  evince 
bv  separate  proofs  the  Supreme  Divinity  of  Jesus  Christ, 
Mi .  Wardlaw  (p.  35)  "  confines  himself  to  certain  general 
vieivs  of  Vhe  st.'bject,  which  seem  to  him  to  contain  in  them 
very  powerful  evidences  of  the  truth  to  be  established." 
He  proposes  "  afterwards  to  enter  into  a  more  particular 
exainination  of  some  of  those  passages  of  Scripture,  which 
form  the  more  direct  and  immediate  proofs.'^  We  shall 
take  under  our  consideration  his  ireneral  viervSy  after  we 
have  examined  his  move  direct  and  immediate  proofs.  In 
the  mean  time  it  will  be  necessary  to  bestow  a  few  animad- 
versions upon  his  preliminary  remarks,   (p.  35 — 38.) 

After  requesting  the  attention  of  his  hearers  to  "  the 
current  language  of  the  New-Testament^''^  rela'ive  to  the 
Divinity  of  Christ,  Mr.  Wardlaw  produces  in  a  string 
nearly  all  the  principal  passages^  which  are  usually 
brought  forward  for  the  purpose,  including  some,  (John  i. 
14.  iii.  13.)  which  at  the  utmost  prove  nothing  more  tnan 
our  Saviour's  pre-existence.  But,  however  adapted  to 
make  a  strong  impression  on  the  minds  of  the  inconsiderate, 
it  is  perfectly  useless  to  recite  in  an  animated  popular 
harangue  a  long  list  of  disputed  passages,  without  any  com- 
ment or  examination,  when  they  will  be  understood  merely 

24 


178 

according;  to  .he  prejudices  of  Ihe  btarers,  or  the  emphasis 
given  by  the  Speaker.  It  is  worse  than  useless  to  bring 
forward  not  twice  as  many  verses  as  the  New  Testament 
contains  books,  and  to  say  that  these  are  a  specimen  oi  its 
"  current  language,"  although  they  have  been  generally 
regarded  as  ihe  capital  proofs  of  the  doctrine  in  ques'.ion. 
Affer'quotii  g  these  passages  "  as  they  presented  them- 
selves to  his  mind,"  Mr.  Wardlaw  argues  from  them  and 
from  others  of  a  similar  kind  afterwards  to  be  introduced, 
by  asking  the  following  "  general  question.^' 

"  Is  there,"  says  he,  "  any  previous  probability,  that  so 
great  a  number  of  passages,  scattered  throughout  the  Bible, 
and  all  bearing,  directly,  alihough  in  different  ways,  on  the 
same  important  point,  should  have  been,  without  exception, 
either  interpolated,  corrnpted,  or  misunderstood  ? — that 
no  criticks,  ancient  or  modern,  have  been  sufficiently  acute 
to  discover,  or  sufficiently  candid  to  admit,  those  manifold 
corruptions  and  interpolations,  of  verses  and  of  chapters, 
which  have  been  detected  and  exposed  by  the  Editors  of 
the  Improved  Version  of  the  New  Testament,  and  the 
friends  of  their  system  ? — that  all  translators,  into  English, 
French,  Latin,  Italian,  German,  and  other  languages,  have 
either  wilfully  or  ignorantly  erred  ;  these  editors,  and  other 
translators  of  their  par'y,  alone  excepted  ? — that  the 
whole  host  of  interpreters  of  the  Scriptures  have,  either 
through  ignorance,  or  prejudice,  or  inattention  and  care- 
lessness, totally  misapprehended  the  true  sense  of  these 
passages  ;  except  the  very  few,  who  deny  that  in  any  one 
of  them  the  Divinity  of  Jesus  Christ  is  at  all  to  be  found  ? 
Are  such  suppositions  as  these,  I  ask,  when  applied  to  so 
large  a  number  of  passages,  in  themselves  probable  ? — or 
are  they  quite  consistent,  in  those  who  make  them,  with 
any  thing  like  a  becoming  measure  of  modesty  and  liu- 
mility  ?"  (p.  41,  42.) 


179 

The  question,  it  is  evident,  includes,  and  was  intended 
by  the  author  lobe  understood  as  including,  this  positive 
affirmation  ;  that,  with  the  exception  of  those  verj  few 
critioks,  who  have  denied,  that  the  Divinity  of  J^sus  Christ 
is  any  where  taught  in  the  Scriptures,  ail  translators  and 
interpreters  in  all  ages,  nations,  and  languages,  have  under- 
stood as  evidences  of  the  Divinity  of  Christ  those  passages, 
which  Mr.  Wardlaw  produces  as  such  in  his  1/iscourses. 

In  reply  to  this  assertion  I  offer  the  following  remarks. 

1.  If  the  Doctrine  of  the  Divinity  of  Christ  be  stated  in 
the  Bible  in  such  direct  terras  as  its  advocates  assert, 
what  occasion  is  there  to  produce  the  opinion  of  commen- 
tators at  a\ll  Why  may  not  the  Scriptures  be  left  to 
speak  for  themselves,  and  to  strike  the  mind  with  irresis- 
tible conviction?  Mr.  Wardlaw,  in  his  Preface,  (p.  ix.)  ob- 
serves, that  on  such  topicks  as  these  the  Bible  cannot  re- 
quire "  the  commentary  of  ancient  opinion.^*  W^hy  then 
has  he  here  made  such  ao  impressive  appeal  to  that  com- 
mentary ? 

2.  By  what  authority  has  Mr.  Wardlaw  advanced  these 
bold  and  confident  assertions  ?  How  many  of  the  orthodox 
translators  and  interpreters  has  he  consulted  ?  I  believe,  a 
very  small  proportion  of  them.  My  own  very  limited  know- 
ledge of  these  subjects  enables  me  to  reply,  that  many  of 
the  passages  produced  have  been  admitted  by  some  of  the 
most  learned  and  respected  Trinitarian  criticks  to  contain 
no  evidence  whatever  of  the  Divinity  of  Christ ;  and,  if  I 
were  to  employ  a  few  years  in  that  laborious  examination  of 
all  the  translations  and  commentaries  of  the  orthodox  in  all 
ao-es  and  in  all  languages,  which  would  alone  qualify  any  one 
to  assert,  that  they  either  do,  or  do  not,  agree  in  presenting 
Trinitarian  expositions,  I  am  inclined  to  think,  that  the  host 
of  ivilnesses  to  the  Unitarian  doctrine  from  among  them 
would  be  almost  as  numerous  as  the  whole  body  of  authors, 


180 

who  have  professedly  opposed  the  doctrine  of  the  divinity 
of  Ciirisf. 

3.  I  deny,  (and  every  one  acquainted  with  theology,  or 
with  !he  literary  history  of  manlvind,  will  join  Awth  rae,) 
that  the  opinion  of  Unitarian  criliciis  is  of  such  little  weight 
as  Mr.  W  irdlaw  represents.  Though  coniparatively  few, 
their  inferiority  in  numbers  is  perhaps  overbalanced  by 
their  acknowledged  learning  and  judgment.  Let  any  one 
cas!  his  eye  upon  the  following  list,  and  say  whether  a  more 
venerable  body  of  witnesses  ever  appeared  in  support  of 
any  doctiine  ;  Abauzit  ;  Abernethy ;  Acontius  ;  Lord  Bar- 
rington  ;  Dr.  Benson  ;  John  Biddle  ;  Bonnet  of  Gi^neva  ; 
Dr.  Chandler  ;  Dr.  Samuel  Clarke  ;  Bishop  Clapton;  Chil- 
lingworth  ;  Crellius  ;  John  Eiwall  ;  Tliomas  Endyn;  Dr. 
Enfield  ;  Mr.  Firuiin  ;  Bishop  Hoadley  ;  Dr.  John  Jebb  ; 
Dr.  Kippis  ;  D  .  Lardner ;  Bishop  Law ;  Dr.  Leland  ;  Mr. 
Lindsey  ;  Mr.  Locke  ;  Mr.  Lowman  ;  Sir  Isaac  Newton  ; 
Mr.  Tho.  F.  Palmer;  William  Penn  ;  Mr.  Pierce;  Dr. 
Price;  Dr.  Priestley  ;  Sandius;  Servetus  ;  Socinns  ;  Mr. 
Henry  Taylor;  Dr.  John  Taylor;  Dr.  VVatts;  Mr.  VVasse  ; 
Mr.  VVhiston;  Dr.  Whitby:* — to  whom  might  be  auded 
many  others,  whose  merits  have  been  little  known,  only  be- 
cause they  belonged  to  the  minority. 

I  present  this  list  of  illustrious  and  venerated  names,  not 
for  the  Bake  of  an  empty  boast,  nor  to  decide  the  questions 
in  dispute  by  great  human  authorities,  but  simply  to  coun- 
teract the  false  impression,  which  Mr.  Wardlaw's  treatment 
of  Unitarian  divines  is  adapted  to  produce.  It  ought  also 
to  be  considered,  that  the  opinion  of  a  man  of  irreproacha- 
ble character  and  undisputed  talents,  who  has  been  educa- 
ted in  the  belief  of  a  certain  system,  but  has  afterwards 
been  induced  to  abandon  that  system  in  consequence  of 
diligent  and  serious  inquiry,  is  certainly  of  far  greater 
weight  than  the  opinion  of  one,  who  abides  by  the  faith 
*  See  note  at  tlie  end  of  the  volume; 


181 

which  has  been  inculcated  upon  him  from  his  infancy,  and 
who  consequenflv,  according  to  what  we  iinov;  of  human 
nature,  must  always  lie  under  the  suspicion  of  being  biassed 
by  prejudice. 

In  opposition  to  Mr.  Wardlaw's  representations  let  the 
candid  Trinitarian  consider  the  following  account  of  the 
manner,  in  which  Unitarians  ar^ue,  written  by  one  of  the 
best  men,  who  ever  entered  the  lists  against  them.  Let 
Unitarians  also  dwell  upon  this  most  beautiful  and  masterly 
por^ait,  and  endeavour  to  deserve  and  maintain  the  good 
character  as  controversialists,  which  is  here  allowed  them  : 

"  To  do  right  to  the  Writers  on  that  side,  I  must  own, 
that  generally  they  are  a  pattern  of  the  fair  way  of  disput- 
ing, and  of  debating  matters  of  religion  without  heat  and 
unseemly  reflect  ions  upon  their  adversaries. — They  gene- 
rally a-gue  matters  with  that  temper  and  gravity,  and  with 
that  freedon  from  passion  and  transport  which  becomes  a 
serious  and  weighty  argument  :  and  for  the  most  part  they 
reason  closely  and  clearly,  with  extraordinary  guard  and 
caution,  with  great  dexterity  and  decency,  and  yet  with 
smarfness  and  subtilty  enough  ;  with  a  very  gentle  heat,  and 
few  hard  words  :  virtues  to  be  praised  wherever  they  are 
found,  yea  even  in  an  enemy,  and  very  worth}'  our  imita- 
tion :  in  a  word,  they  are  the  strongest  managers  of  a  weak 
cause  and  which  is  ill-founded  at  the  bottom,  that  perhaps 
ever  yet  meddled  with  controversy:  insomuch  that  some 
of  the  Protestants  and  the  generality  of  the  Popish  writers, 
and  even  of  the  Jesuits  themselves,  who  pretend  to  all  the 
•  reason  and  subtilty  in  the  world,  are  in  comparison  of  them 
but  mere  scolds  and  bunglers.  Upon  the  whole  matter, 
they  have  but  this  one  great  defect,  that  they  want  a  good 
cause  and  truth  on  their  side ;  which  if  they  had,  they  have 
reason,  and  wit,  and  temper  enough  to  defend  it."— Til- 
lotson's  Sermons  on  the  Divinity  of  our  blessep 
Saviour,  V.  I.  fol.  p.  449. 


182 


CHAPTER  V. 

EXAMINATION   OF    THE    PASSAGES,    IN    WHICH    THE    PECULIAR    TITLES  OF 
DEITY  ARE  SUPPOSED  TO  BE  APPLIED  TO  JESUS  CHRIST. 

f 

I  now  proceed  to  examine  (he  passages,  which  Mr. 
Wartllaw  brings  forward  in  proof  of  ihe  Divinity  of  Christ. 
I  shall  endeavour  to  show,  that  they  may  all  be  easily  re- 
conciled to  the  clear  and  simple  doctrines,  stated  in  the 
Second  Part  of  this  Treatise.  Whether,  as  Mr.  Wardlaw 
asserts  (p.  43,  131.)  this  attempt  be  "  superlatively  diflS- 
cuh,"  and  will  "employ  and  exhaust  all  the  possible  arts 
and  resources  of  criticism,"  those  persons,  who  are  ac- 
quainted with  criticism,  must  judge. 

Our  author  proposes  to  establish  his  doctrine  by  showing, 
"«ha(  the  peculiar  Names,  Attributes,  Works,  and 
W  ORSHip,  of  the  True  God,  are  distinctly  ascribed  in  the 
Bible  10  Jesus  Christ."   (p.  53.) 

First,  he  maintains,  that  the  "Names  and  Titles,  be- 
lon^'ing  exclusively  to  the  True  God,  are  in  the  Scriptures 
ascribed  to  Jesus  Christ."  He  informs  his  readers,  that, 
"  agreeably  to  the  plan  of  selection^  which  he  has  prescrib- 
ed to  himself,"  he  will  confine  their  attention  to  two  of 
these,  vis.  God  and  Jehovah.  He  seems  to  forget,  that, 
even  by  his  own  subsequent  concessions,  "  God"  is  not  a 
Name,  which  belongs  "exclusively"  to  the  Supreme  Being. 
The  title  is  applied  in  the  Sacred  Scriptures,  not  to  him 
alone,  but  to  some  of  his  creatures.  In  proof  of  this  fact  the 
Unitarians  appeal  to  no  less  an  authority  than  that  of  Jesus 
Christ  himself,  who  affirms,  that  in  the  Scriptures  those  per- 
sons are  called  Gods,  unto  whom  the  word  of  God  came. 
John  X.  35.     If  his   testimony  require,   or  admit  of,  any 


183 

coufirmation,  it  is  afforded  by  the  following  passages;  Geu. 
iii.  5.  "Your  ejes  shall  be  opened,  and  ye  shall  be  as 
Gods,  knowing  good  and  evil."  Ex.  vii.  1.  "And  the 
Lord  said  unto  Moses,  ♦  See,  I  have  made  thee  a  God  to 
Pharaoh.'  "  xv.  11.  "Who  is  like  unto  thee,  O  Lord, 
among  the  Gods."  xxi.  6.  "  Then  his  master  shall  bring 
him  unto  the  Judges,"  literally,  "  unto  the  Gods."  xxii. 
8,  9.  "  If  the  thief  be  not  found,  then  the  master  of  the 
house  shall  be  brought  unto  the  Judges,  (literally,  unto  the 
Gods,)  to  see  whether  he  have  put  his  hand  unto  his  neigh- 
bour's goods  :  For  all  manner  of  trespass,  whether  it  be  for 
ox,  for  ass,  for  sheep,  for  raiment,  or  for  any  manner  of  lost 
thing,  which  another  challengeth  to  be  his,  the  cause  of  both 
parties  shall  come  before  the  Judges ;  (literally,  before  the 
Gods)  and  whom  the  Judges  (literally,  the  Gods)  shall 
condemn,    he    shall    pay    double    unto    his    neighbour.'* 

!  Ver.  28.  "  Thou  shalt  not  revile  the  Gods,  nor  curse 
the  ruler  of  thy  people."  Dent.  x.  17.  "For  the 
Lord,  your  God,  is  God  of  Gods."  1  Samuel  ii.  25. 
"  If  one  man  sin  against  another,  the  Judge  (literally,  the 
God)  shall  judge  him."  xxviii.  13.  "I  saw  Gods  (pro- 
perly, a  God)  ascending  out  of  the  earth."  Ps.  viii.  5. 
"  For  thou  hast  made  him  a  little  lower  than  the  angels," 

1  literally,  "  than  the  Gods."  Ixxxii.  1.  "  God  standeth  in 
the  congregation  of  the  mighty;    he  judgeth   among   the 

i    Gods."       Ver.    6.    "I    have    said,     'Ye    are    Gods.'  " 

I  Ixxxvi.  8.  "  Among  the  Gods  there  is  none  like  nnto  thee, 
O  Lord."  xcvii.  7.  "  Worship  him,  all  ye  Gods."  Ver. 
9.  "  Thou,  Lord,  art  high  above  all  the  earth  ;  thou  art 
exalted  far  above  all  Gods."  Here  are  seventeen  cases, 
(and  I  think  tt  probable,  that  there  are  more,)  of  the  use  of 
the  word  God  in  the  sense,  affixed  to  it  by  our  Saviour. 
It  is  therefore  undeniable,  that  the  name  may  be  given, 
according  to  the  practice  of  the  Sacred  Waiters,  to  all  per- 

i  sons,  whether  Angels,  Prophets,  or  Judges,  to  whom  the 


I 


184 

word  of  God  conies,  or,  who  are  authorized,  commissioned, 
and  inspired  to  declare  the  will  of  God  to  mankind.     In 
this  sense  all  Unitarians   admit  and   maintain,  thai    Jesus 
Christ  was  a  God.     The  mere  application  to  him  oi    this 
title  consequentlj  proves  nothing;.     As  a  learned  Unitarian 
author  observes,  "The  question  is  not,  Whether  Chris*  is 
called  God   in   Scripture,   for   that  is  undeniable  ;    but.  In 
what  sense  the  word  is  to  be  understood."      (K.  Ta}  lor's 
Considerations  on  Ancient   and  Modern  Creeds  compared, 
p.  124.)     The  established  principles  of  criticism  require,    h 
that  we  should   prefer  that   interpretation,  which  is  agreea- 
ble to  the  clear  and  universally  acknowledged  doctrine  of 
the  Scriptures,  before  that,  which  is  conlrai  j  to  an  v  known 
truth,  or  which  is  attended  with  anj  considerable  tlifficuhies. 
Since   therefore  it  is  a  fact,  about   which   there  is  among 
Christians   no  dispute,   that   Jesus    was  a  person,    *'  unto 
whom  the  word  of  God   came;"    since   we  luio.v,   that  he 
vindicated  the  application  to  himself  of  the  iitle  God,  taken 
in  this  sense  (John  x.  34,  35.)  and  since  we  do  not  know,  until  i 
it  be  proved,  that  the  title  belongs  to  him  in  any  other  sense  ;  ' 
we  ought  thus  to  understand  it,  wherever  we  find  it  applied 
to  him  in  the  Sacred  Scriptures,  nnless  there  be  some  par- 
ticular circumstances  in  the  mode  of  application,  which  t 
point  him  out  as  the  supreme  God,  the  one  living  and 
TRUE  God,  the  God    of    Gods,    or    the  God   who  is 
above  all. 

I  now  proceed    to    examine    the    passages,  in  which  this 
title  has   been  commonly  supposed  to   be   applied  to  Jesus  | 
Christ.     I  shall  show,  that  in  the  few  instances,  in  wbi(  h  itiS 
really  is  given  to  him,  there  is  nothing  in   the  mode  or  cir- 
cumstances of  the   application,  sufficient    to  prove  his  Su 
preme  Divinity.  j  % 

Isa.  vii.  14.   "Therefore  the    Lord    himself  shall  give  Hesi 
you  a  sign  ;  Behold,  a  virgin  shall    conceive,  and  bear  a  i  i^sc 


'i 


111 

sc 
ai 

pre 

app 


1S5 

son,  and  shall  call  his  name  Immanuel."  This  passage  ia 
applied  to  the  birth  of  our  Saviour  in  the  Gospei  of  Mat- 
thew, ch.  i.  23.  It  is  referred  to  by  Mr.  Wardlaw  re- 
peatedly as  an  evidence  of  the  Divinity  of  Christ.  See  p. 
39,  54,  64,  79,  96,  107,  133,  203,  218,  238,  333. 

Isa.  ix.  6.  "  For  unto  us  a  child  is  born,  unto  us  a  son  is 
given,  and  the  government  shall  be  upon  his  shoulder  ;  and 
his  name  shall  be  called  Wonderful,  Counsellor,  The 
MIGHTY  God,  The  everlasting  Father,  The  Prince  of 
Peace."  Upon  this  passage  also  Mr.  Wardlaw  lays  great 
stress  ;  p.  64,  86,  133,  136.  To  illustrate  the  sense,  in 
which  the  title  "  mighty  Ge"  is  applied,  he  compares  it 
with  Isa.  X.  21.  where  the  same  phrase  occurs  ;  "  The 
remnant  shall  return,  even  the  remnant  of  Jacob,  unto  the 
mighty  God." 

If,  as  I  have  shown  above,  the  title  God  belonged  to  all, 
"  unto  whom  the  word  of  God  came,"  these  two  passages 
would  present  no  obstacle  to  our  belief  in  the  Unitarian 
doctrine,  even  though  it  were  certain,  that  in  each  instance 
the  original  text  is  uncorrupted,  the  English  translation 
correct,  and  the  designations,  "  Immanuel"  and  "  mighty 
God,"  really  intended  to  be  descriptive  of  the  nature  oj 
Christ.  These  titles  would  only  convey  the  same  idea?, 
which  were  expressed  by  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem,  when 
they  exclaimed,  "  A  great  prophet  is  risen  up  among 
us,"  and  by  the  two  disciples,  (Luke  xxivo  19.)  who  de- 
scribed Jesus  of  Nazareth  as  "a  prophet  mighty  in  deed 
and  word.^^ 

I  must  however  confess,  (although  by  so  doing  I  shall 
probably  rather  weaken  than  confirm  my  argument  in  t\w 
apprehension  of  some  readers,)  that,  as  it  appears  to  me,  the 
word  God  was  not  intended,  in  the  former  instance  to  be 
descriptive  of  the  person  of  Christ,  and  in  the  latter  there 
is  some  doubt,  whether  it  be  applied  to  Christ  at  all. 
25 


186 

In  order  to  perceive  Ihe  true  meaning  of  Immanuel,  it 
is  necessary  to  consider  the  singular  manner,  in  which  pro- 
per names  were  formed  and  applied  by  the  ancient  He- 
brews. It  was  common  among  them  to  give  to  their  children 
names,  which  were  in  reality  short  sentences,  expressive  of 
sofne  Divine  favour  conferred  at  the  time  of  the  child's 
birth.  Thus  Hagar  called  her  new  born  son,  Ishmael, 
which  is,  being  interpreted,  God  hath  heard  ! — an  ex- 
clamation, expressive  of  her  joy,  that  God  had  heard  her 
affliction.  (Gen.  xvi.  11.)  Agreeably  to  the  same  idiom 
most  other  Scripture  names  are  to  be  understood. 

In  the  third  verse  of  the  C^iap^er,  in  which  Immanuel 
occurs,  mention  is  made  of  one  of  the  sons  oi  Isaiah  under 
the  name  of  Shear-j  ashub.     This  name  is  a  complete  sen- 
tence.    Literally  translated  it  is,    a  remnant  shall   re- 
turn.    The  son  of  Isaiah    was  called  by  this  singular  ap- 
pellation, in  order  that  the  great  and  consolatory  fact  of  the 
return  of  a  remnant  of  the   Jewish   nation   from  captivity, 
which  was  the  frequent  burthen  of  his  prophec}',  might,  by 
the  appearance  of  his  son,  bearing  this  expressi\  e  name,  be 
often  recalled  to  his  mind  and  to  the  minds  of  his  country- 
men.    Also  in  the  next  Chapter,  which  is  a  coniinuaion  of 
the   same  pi-ophecy  and  relates  to  the  same  events,  we  are 
informed,  that  Isaiah  had  another  son,  concerning  whom  the 
Lord  said  to  him,  (ver.  3.)  Call  his  name,  jMaher  shalal 
HASH   BAz.     This  signifies.   The    spoiling    hastenfth, 
THE  PREYiNo   COMETH  quicKLY.     The  Divinc  command 
was  intended    and  understood   as  an    intimation,  that,  soon 
after  this  child's  birth,  the  Jews  would   be    victorious  over 
their  enemies,  and  the  time  of  spoiling  their  vanquished  foes 
would  arrive.     Accordingly,  the  reason  for  giving  thisna!ne 
is  assiane<l  in  the  next  verse  in  the  following  terms  ;  "  For 
before  Ihe  child   shidl  have   knowledge  to  cry.   My  fn'ber, 
and  my  mother,  the   riches  of  Damascus,  and  the  sjsoil   of 
Samaria,  shall  be  taken  away  before  the  king  of  Assyria." 


187 

tn  consequence  of  this  singular  custom  of  giving  names 
to  children  descriptive  of  (he  circumstances  of  (heir  birth, 
it  became  usual  with  the  prophets  to  denote  an  event,  which 
w^hich  was  about  to  accompany  (he  birth  of  a  child,  by  say- 
ing, that  the  child  would  have  a  name  descriptive  of  that 
event.  Among  the  Jews  this  remarkable  mode  of  speaking 
was  well  understood,  aKhough  it  is  li((le  adapted  (o  (he  hab- 
its of  our  age  and  nation.  These  facts  must  be  borne  in 
mind  as  leading  to  the  exact  in(erpreta(ion  of  the  title  Im- 
MANUEL,  which  signifies,  God  is  with  us.  It  was  intend- 
ed to  signify,  that,  at  the  time  of  the  child's  birth,  God 
would  be  with  his  people  b^  extraordinary  manifestations 
of  his  favour.  Hence  (he  Prophet,  in  (he  next  Chapter, 
foretelling  the  defeat  of  the  enemies  of  Judah,  assigns  its 
cause  by  repeating  the  affirmation,  God  is  w^ith  us,  or 
Immaxuel,  which  a  little  before  he  employs  as  (he  name 
of  (he  child,  ver.  9,  10.  "Associate  yourselves,  O  ye  peo- 
ple, and  ye  shall  be  broken  in  pieces  ;  and  give  ear,  all  ye 
of  far  countries  :  gird  yourselves,  and  ye  shall  be  broken  ia 
pieces  ;  gird  yourselves,  and  ye  shall  be  broken  in  pieces. 
Take  counsel  together,  and  it  shall  come  to  nought;  speak 
the  word,  and  it  shall  not  stand  :  for  Immanuel  !  God 
IS  WITH  us  !" 

It  is  generally  agreed,  that  in  its  primary  application 
this  passage  related  to  the  birth  of  a  child  within  a  few  years 
from  the  publication  of  the  prophecy.  Bishop  Lowth  re- 
marks, that,  though  "  not  excluding  a  higher  secondary 
sense,  the  obvious  and  literal  meaning  of  the  prophecy  is 
this  ;  that  within  the  time  that  a  young  woman,  now  a  vir- 
gin, should  conceive  and  bring  forth  a  child,  and  that  child 
should  arrive  at  such  an  age  as  to  distinguish  between  good 
and  evil,  that  is,  within  a  few  years,  (compare  ch.  viii.  4.) 
the  enemies  of  Judah  should  be  destroyed."  As  a  sign  of 
the  destruction  of  the  enemies  of  Judah,  the  child,  to  be 


188 

born  at  that  time,  was  to  be  called  Immanuel  !  God  i& 
WITH  us  !  and  all  that  was  meant  by  the  exclamation,  God 
IS  WITH  us  !  was,  thai  God  would  at  that  time  appear  in  a 
remarkable  manner  as  the  protector  and  benefactor  of  his 
people.  When  applied  according  to  the  "  higher  seconda- 
ry setise^*  of  the  prophecy,  it  had  the  same  meaning.  It 
signified,  that,  when  the  Messiah  arose,  God  would  bestow 
great  blessings  upon  mankind.  In  this  sense  all  serious 
Unitarians  entertain  the  most  grateful  conviction,  that  God 
WAS,  and  so  long  as  the  Gospel  of  his  Son  shall  continue  to 
illuminate,  console,  and  reclaim  mankind,  that  He  is 
WITH  us. 

Thus,  I  have  no  doubt,  the  passage  of  Isaiah  was  un- 
derstood by  the  writer,  who  has  applied  it  to  the  birth  of 
Jesus  Christ.  At  the  same  time  I  am  aware,  that  this  in- 
terpretation is  by  no  means  obvious  to  those,  who  have  not 
paid  much  attention  to  the  idioms  of  the  Scriptures,  and 
that  it  may  easily  be  held  up  to  ridicule  by  the  inconsid- 
erate. 

Bishop  Lowth  observes  concerning  this  portion  of  the 
prophecies  of  Isaiah,  (ch.  vii — ix.  6.)  that  there  are  in  it 
*'  many  and  great  difficulties."  The  verse,  which  is  quoted 
to  prove  the  Divinity  of  Christ  on  account  of  the  occur- 
rence in  it  of  the  phrase,  "  mighty  God,^'  although  pro- 
duced by  the  ignorant  with  the  most  triumphant  and  unre- 
flecting confidence,  will  probably  be  allowed  by  all  com- 
petent judges  to  be  attended  with  as  great  difficulties  as 
any  other  verse  in  this  confessedly  obscure  portion  of 
Sacred  Scripture.  I  am  sensible,  that  it  would  be  highly 
presumptuous  in  me  to  attempt  to  decide  the  various  ques- 
tions relating  to  it,  about  which  the  most  eminent  criticks 
both  in  foreign  countries  and  in  our  own,  have  differed  and 
continue  to  differ;  such  as.  Whether  the  word  Al,  translat- 
ed God,  to  which  there  is  nothing  corresponding  in  any  of 


189 

the  ancient  Greek  versions,  be  a  genuine  part  of  the  He- 
brew lext  ;  Whether,  supposing  it  to  be  genuine,  it  ought 
not  to  be  translated  a  "  Ruler,"  since  this  is  a  \evy  com- 
mon acceptation  of  the  term  ;  and,  Whether  the  titles,  con- 
tained in  this  verse,  were  not  intended  to  describe,  at  least 
according  to  their  primary  signification,  the  character  of 
Hezekiah,  or  some  other  distinguished  person  born  at  the 
time  when  the  prophecy  was  uttered.  Without  endeavour- 
ing to  settle  questions,  upon  which  those  men,  who  are  the 
best  qualified  to  decide,  speak  with  the  greatest  diflSdence, 
I  shall  only  say,  that  our  firm  belief  in  the  sole  Supreme 
Divinity  of  the  Father  and  the  subordination  of  Jesus 
Christ  ought  not  to  be  shaken  by  the  evidence  of  a  passage, 
which  is  allowed  to  be  attended  with  many  difficulties,  and 
in  which,  at  the  very  utmost,  the  application  of  the  title 
"  mighty  God''  to  Jesus  of  Nazareth  would  only  prove 
him  to  be  a  person,  unto  whom  the  word  of  God  came. 

Other  supposed  applications  of  the  title  "  God"  to  Jesus 
in  connexion  with  Jehovah^  the  incommunicable  name  of 
the  Supreme  Deity,  will  be  considered  among  the  proofs, 
that  Jesus  is  called  Jehovah.  We  now  proceed  to  the 
passages  of  the  New  Testament,  in  which  Jesus  is  said  to 
be  called,  or  is  really  called  by  the  name  "  God." 

John  i.  1.  "  In  the  beginning  was  the  W^ord,  and  the 
W^ord  was  with  God,  and  the  Word  was  God."  (Quoted 
by  Mr.  Wardlaw,  p.  39,  58—63,  133.) 

Although  great  respect  is  due  to  the  opinion  of  those 
learned  and  excellent  men,  who  have  thought,  that  "  the 
Word,"  here  spoken  of,  is  the  Reason  or  Wisdom  of  the 
Deity,  yet  I  entertain  no  doubt,  that  it  is  intended  as  a 
designation  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  preacher  of  the  Word. 
But,  even  if  there  were  any  occasion  to  retain  the  common 
translation,  this  single   passage  would  not  be  sufiicient  to 


190 

prove,  that  Jesus  Christ  is  trulj  and  properly  God.  As 
we  inlerpret  the  phrase,  "  This  is  my  body,"  to  signify, 
"  This  represents  my  body,"  because  a  regard  to  the  pre- 
servation of  consistency  and  rationahty  in  the  doctrines  of 
the  Gospel,  requires  this  acceptation  of  our  Saviour's  lan- 
guage ;  so  we  ought  to  interpret  the  assertion,  that  "  the 
Word  was  God,"  as  meaning  only,  that  "  the  Word  rep- 
resenled  God."  Such  would  be  the  proper  mode  of  con- 
sidering the  passage,  if  there  were  reason  to  believe,  that 
the  term  God  is  here  used  according  to  its  highest  sense 
as  an  appellation  of  the  Supreme  Deity. 

It  however  appears  to  me,  that  the  rules  of  criticism  lead 
to  that  translation  of  the  last  clause,  upon  which  Mr.  Ward- 
law  has  bestowed  the  most  copious  animadversions,  vis. 
"  the  Word  was  a  God."  It  is,  as  I  have  before  observed, 
an  established  principle  of  interpretation,  that  from  among 
the  various  senses,  in  which  we  know  any  word  to  be  used, 
we  ought  in  each  case  to  select  that,  which  afTords  a  mean- 
ing, agreeable  to  the  clear  dictates  of  common  sense  and  the 
admitted  doctrines  of  Holy  Scripture.  We  are  assured  by 
abundant  and  irrefragable  proofs,  both  that  the  term  God 
is  used  in  Scripture  to  signify  "  any  person,  who  is  author- 
ized, commissioned,  and  inspired  to  declare  the  will  of 
Jehovah  to  mankind,"  and  also  that  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
was  such  a  person.  This  explanation  of  the  passage  there- 
fore is  free  from  every  objection.  On  the  contrary,  we  do 
not  know,  that  Jesus  Christ  was  Jehovah,  and  consequently 
we  are  not  justified  in  understanding  the  phrase  as  implying 
such  a  doctrine. 

It  has  been  remarked  by  Origen  and  Eusebius,*  follow- 
ed by  some  of  the   moderns,  that  the  lower  sense  of   the 

*  "  S«?aij  (Tf  irawo'TJi  Itot  t/c  «v,  (srilicet,  o  Aoyic)  tmiruvnTrraiv  t^ni  niu  Xty^av, 
'Kelt  bio;  iiv  0  Koyo;.  i'livit/mva  y^vv  uttuv,  Km  'O  B-toc  m  o  xo^oj.'  fxtra.  T«f  rou 
eifi^pou  TTpoa-d'uMii'  ti  yt  h  Ktt-t  tautov  nynTO  it,])  ttati^x  eoeu  KUt  tov  viovy  eLwviv  n 


191 

word  Theos  in  the  last  clause  of  the  verse  is  indicated  by 
the  ivaiit  of  the  definite  article.  Those  who  know,  that  the 
word  Theos  commonly  has  the  article  prefixed  in  the  ori- 
ginal, when  the  Supreme  Being  is  intended,  and  who  have 
consulted  the  observations  on  the  force  of  the  article,  col- 
lected by  Wetstein  from  the  ancient  fathers,  will  not  be 
disposed  to  deny  the  propriety  of  this  observation.  Mr. 
Wardlaw  however  treats  it  as  denoting,  not  only  a  want  of 
candour  and  fairness,  but  even  an  ignorance  of  the  ordinary 
rules  of  Greek  syntax.  Surely  he  did  not  know,  that  the 
authors,  against  whom  these  censures  are  directed,  were 
some  of  the  most  illustrious  and  learned  men,  who  ever  used 
the  Greek  language  as  their  vernacular  tongue,  who  also 
addressed  their  remarks  to  \)ev  sons  familiar  with  that  lan- 
guage from  their  infancy,  and  in  opposition  to  whom  Mr. 
Wardlarv^ s  assertions,  and  even  Dr.  Middleton''s,  are  not 
worth  a  rush.  Although  the  mere  names  of  Origen  and 
EusEBius  will  be  sufScient  in  the  ears  of  all,  who  have  the 
slightest  tincture  of  theological  learning,  to  drown  at  once 
the  feeble  diminutive  accents  of  our  worthy  author,  yet  I 
shall  for  a  few  moments  detain  his  remarks  from  the  con- 
cealment, into  which  they  are  fast  hastening,  in  order  to  ob- 
serve in  reply  to  them,  that  his  rule  about  the  rejection  of 

tifttt  Tov  xoytiv  Tsv  im  TtMTm  B'sov"  etc.  that  is,  "  The  Evangelist  lias  clearly 
shown  what  is  the  tiature  of  the  Word,  by  sulijoining,  '  And  the  Word 
was  a  God  ;'  although  he  might  have  said  '  And  the  word  was  God,' 
with  the  addition  of  the  article,  if  he  had  thought,  that  tho  Father  and 
the  Son  were  one  and  the  same,  and  that  the  Word  is  God  over  all." 
— EusEBius  i)E  EccLEs.  Theol.  L.  II.  c.  17. 

From  the  argument  of  the  venerable  Father  in  this  passage  it  is 
plain,  that  he  perceived  no  violation  of  the  rules  of  syntax  in  the  ad- 
dition or  the  article ;  and  upon  a  matter  of  this  kind  it  is  impossible,  that 
he  could  have  been  mistaken.  The  observations  of  Origen,  in  his  Com- 
iD-^n'.ary  on  John,  are  precisely  to  the  same  purpose.  They  are  too 
leng  to  quote,  but  may  be, seen  in  De  la  Rue's  edition,  Vol.  IV,  p.  59.  51. 


192 

the  article  in  the  predicate  of  a  proposition  is  completely 
fallacious  ;  that,  for  an  inslance  exactly  in  point,  we  need 
go  no  further  than  the  text  of  his  discourse,  which  "  for  the 
sake  of  easy  reference"  he  has  printed  in  the  original  Greek 
at  the  bottom  of  page  30  ;  {ovto;  i^nv  'o  ct^^im  &»?,  xm  'H  (m 
Mmvtos :)  that  Jhe  sentiment,  "  the  Word  was  a  god,''  could  not 
be  expressed  in  any  other  way  than  that  employed  by  the 
Evangelist ;  (3-«oc  w «  xoyo; ;)  whereas  the  sentiment,  "  the 
Word  was  God,"  might  have  been  expressed  without  am- 
biguity by  the  introduction  of  the  article,  (thus,  «  ^oy>^  «'  • 
^s«f.)  and  this  arrangement  would  have  been  indisputably 
correct  and  grammatical. 

But,  although  the  want  of  the  definite  article  in  this  in- 
stance ought  to  be  allowed  some  weight  in  favour  of  the 
Unitarian  interpretation,  I  do  not  imagine  it  to  be  a  derisive 
circumstance:  for  I  am  aware  of  the  justice  of  the  follow- 
ing observations  of  the  learned  Bishop  Pearson  ;  "  We 
must  not  think  to  decide  this  controversy  by  the  articles, 
0,  «,  TO,  of  which  the  sacred  penmen  were  not  curious,  and  the 
transcribers  have  been  very  careless."  Pearson  on  the 
Creed,  p.  150,  note. 

Mr.  Wardlaw  further  objects  to  the  translation  proposed 
by  Unitarians,  that  it  attributes  to  an  inspired  author  "  the 
very  language  of  paganism."  But  let  the  reader  turn  back 
to  the  passages  above  quoted,  in  which  the  word  "  God"  is 
acknowledged  by  all  to  be  used  in  this  inferiour  sense  ;  and 
let  him  say  whether  the  charge  is  not  equally  applicable  to 
them.  "  Who  is  like  unto  thee,  O  Jehovah,  amonsr  the 
gods  ?"  "  For  Jehovah,  your  God,  is  God  of  gods." 
*'  Worship  him,  all  ye  gods."  W  hat  language,  we  may 
ask  in  the  spirit  of  Mj-.  Wardlaw's  objection,  could  be  more 
"  favourable,  in  the  first  impression  which  it  necessarily 
makes  upon  the  mind,  to  the  notion  of  a  supreme  and  of  subor- 
dinate deities  ?" — "  Thou  shalt  not  revile  the  gods."  "  God 


«f:inde(h  in  (he  congregation  of  (he  migiifj ;  he  jiidgetk 
ainon;^  (he  gods."  "I  have  saicl,  Ye  are  gotla."  How  is 
it  poisible,  that  authors,  wri(ing  under  the  guidance  of  (he 
spirit,  could  employ  language,  which  so  plainly  counte- 
nances the  hea(hen  idea,  (hat  Kings  and  Magis(ra(e3  were 
an  inferiour  order  of  Divinities  ?  The  proper  answer  (o  this, 
and  every  such  objecdon,  is,  (hat  we  are  required  (o  make 
soma  use  of  our  unders(andings  in  in(erpre(ing  (he  Scrip- 
tLu-es,  so  as  (o  make  them  consistent  wi(h  themselves  and 
with  (he  clear  dictates  of  reason. 

Mi-.  Wardlaw  affirms,  that  the  occurrences  of  (he  word 
"  GotV^  in   (he  inferiour  sense,  "  as  applied,  for  instance,  to 
Angels  and  (o  Magistrates,  are  very  rare,  and  that  (hey  are 
uniformly  in  such  circums(ances  as  at  once  to  preclude  the 
possibility    of   any   pernicious   mistake."      These   "  very 
rare"  occurrences  however  are  far  more  numerous  than  (he 
instances  of  (he  applica(ion  of  (he  name    to   Jesus  in   any 
sense ;  and  I  deny,  (ha{  the  securi(y  from  errour  is  greater 
in  (he  various  passages,    which  I  have  quoted,   (han  in  the 
disputed  words  of  (he  Evangelis(  John.      On  the  contrary, 
the  misinterpretation  of  his  language  is  par(icularly  guarded 
against  by  the  assertion,  which  goes  before  and  follows  after 
it,  (hat  "  the  Word  was  ivith  God.^^      If  Jesus  Christ    was 
with  the  Supreme  Deity,  and  could  not  be  the  same  being 
whom  he  was  with,  the  context  itself  demonstrates  the  ne- 
cessity of  interpreting  the  last  clause  to  signify   only,   that 
he  was  the  medium  of  Divine  communicationis   to  mankind. 

The  next  instance  of  (he  application  of  the  name  "  God''* 
to  our  blessed  Saviour,  is  in  the  address  of  Thomas.  John 
XX.  28.  "  And  Thomas  answered  and  said  unto  him, '  Mj 
Lord  and  my  god  !'  "  (Produced  by  Mr.  Wardlaw,  p.  114 
—126,  139.) 

26 


194 

Leaving  every  reader  at  full  liberty  to  judge  for  himself, 
and  retaining  the    right  of  changing  my   opinion,  if  at  any 
future  time  I  shall  see  fit,  I  only  remark  upon  this  passage 
without  stating  all  my  reasons,   that  these  words  appear  to 
me  to  have  been  addressed  by  Thomas  to  Christ,  and  may 
be  justly  considered  both  as  an  exclamation  expressive  of 
his  wonder  and  delight,  and  also  as  a  confession,  that  Jesus 
was  his  lord  and  his  god.       But    it  is  needless    to  dispnte, 
that,  when  Thomas  addressed  Jesus  as  his  lord,  or   master, 
and  his  god,  he  might  mean  only,  that  Jesus  was /its  inspired 
instructer  in  matters  of  religion.       Agreeably     therefore 
to   the  principles,  which  have  been  before  strted,  his  words 
ought    to    be     understood    according  to   this    simple   and 
reasonable    interpretation. 

I  should  have  admired  Mr.  Wardlaw's  observations  upon 
this  text  as  candid  and  f^r  the  most  part  just,  if  he  had  not 
unfortunately  added  to  them  the  following  note,  which  it  is 
necessary  for  me  to  produce  in  order  to  do  justice  to  the 
editors  of  the"  Improved  Version." 

"  The  note  of  the  Improved  Version  on  the  words   of 
Thouas  to  Christ,   is  very  remarkable,  on  account   of  the 
reference  which    it  contains    to  the  authority  of  Besa,  in 
favour  of  their  being  an  exclamation.       On  this    reference 
Mr.  Nares  observes    as  follows : — '  It  is   exceedingly  true 
that  Beza  says  it  is  an  exclamation,  and  therefore  he  cor- 
rects the  vulgate,  and  renders  it  in  the  vocative,  "  Domine 
mi,  et  Deus  mi ;"  but,  observing  that  the  context  expressly 
says  they  were  spoken  *wTa),  fo /ttyn,    that  is,    to   Christ,  he 
savs,  "  Hc-ec  igitur  verba  quae  sequuntur  non    sunt    tantum 
adnirantis  Thomae,  ut   hunc  locmn  elndebant   Nestoriaiiij 
sedipsum  ilium  Jesum  ut  verura  Deum  ac  Dominum  suum 
compeUantis.      Ma!e,  igitur,  vulgata  interpretatur  hunc    lo- 
cum  recto  casu,  Dominns  mens  et  Deus  mens  :  nee  alius  est 
locus  in  his  libris  expressior,  de  Cluisto,  ut  vero  De,o,  invo- 


195 

cando." — This  is  what  I  find  in  Beza,  concerning  this  ex- 
clan  ifion.       It   was,  he  says,  non  tantum,  not  merely  an 
exclamation,   but  an   actual   address  of   Thomas  to   Jesus, 
calling  him  both  his  Ijord  and  his  God  ;  an  indisputable  pre- 
cedent for  the  invoking  of  Christ,  m^  Deus  verus,  as  the  true 
God.     I  shall  venture,'  adds  Mr.  Nares,  '  to  lay  it  down  as 
a  rule,  for  all  readers  of  this  new  Version,  to  examine    the 
references.'     Nares'  Remarks   on   the  Improved  Version, 
page   197." 

Unwilling  to  believe  without  proof,  that  the  editors  of  the 
Improved  Version  were   guilty  of  the  flagrant  carelessness 
or  fraud,  which  is   here  imputed  to  them,  I  consulted  both 
them  and  Beza.     I  found  with  no  small  surprise,    that   the 
charge   of  misrepresenting  Beza,  if  applicable  to  any  one, 
falls  upon  the  venerable  Archbishop  Newcome.     The  edi- 
tors of  the  Improved  Version,  who  throughout  their  work 
make  continual  use  of  his  translation  and  commentary,  have 
only  quoted  the  note  in  question  from  him  and  marked  it 
with  the  greatest  distinctness  as  a  quotation.     1  therefore 
must  beg  leave  to  advise  the  reader  a/wa^s  to  examine  Mr. 
Wardlaw^s  and  Mr.  Nares^  references. 

The  next  passage  of  the  New  Testament,  in  which  the 
title  God  is  asserted  by  Trinitarians  to  be  given  to  Jesus, 
is  Rom.  ix.  5.  "  Whose  are  the  fathers,  and  of  whom  as 
concerning  the  flesh  Christ  came,  who  is  over  all  God 
BLESSED  FOR  EVER."  (Q,noted  by  Mr.  Wardlaw,  p.  29, 
30,  40,  65—68,  133,  406,  407.) 

If  there  were  any  evidence,  that  this  translation  is  cor- 
rect, here  would  be  a  rase  in  point  ;  the  words  of  the  A;iOS- 
tle  would  present  a  clear  and  valid  argument  for  the  Su- 
preme Divinity  of  Jesus  Christ.  For  in  this  instance  we 
find  the  name  "  God"  employed  in  circumstances,  which 
prove  it  to  belong  to  the  uncreated  Jehovah.  "  The  God 
WHO  IS  ovBR   AiiL,"   (o uv fTTt ?r*nm ^m)  is  His  appropriate 


196 

and  peculiar  designalion.     But  <he  utmost,  that  can  be  said 
to   vindicate   this   rendering  is,  that  it  does   not  A'iolate  the 
rules  of  grammar  or  the  idioms  of  the  Greek  language,  and 
therefore  mau  possibly  be  the  true  translation.     I  have  no 
doubt,  that  a  person  familiarly  acquainted   with  Greeic,  and 
free    from    any   previous  bias  to  the  Tiinifarian   doctrine, 
would   without  hesitation  understand  the   last  clause  as  an 
abrupt  ascription  of  praise  to  the  God  who  is  above  all. 
My   reasons  are   briefly   these;    1st,  because  such  ascrip- 
tions  of  praise  are  very  frequent  in    the  writings  of  the  Old 
and  New    Testament  and  in  all  Jewish  compositions  ;  •2d, 
Because  they  almost  uniformly  want  the  substantive  verb, 
(io-Tcc  or  ««,)  as  in  this  instance ;  3d,  Because  the  periphrasis 
here  used  as  a  name  of  Deity,  "  The  God  who  is  above 
ALL,"  (o  *>'  «^'  ■rx.vrxiv  ^ssc,)  or  phrascs  almost  exactly  the  same 
with  it,    such  as    os«!TctvT&.v9^socand  o  s^n  s-^o-/ S-eoc)   are  expres- 
sions of  perpetual  occurrence  in  Greek  writings  upon  reli- 
gious subjects,  which  are  universally  understood  as  desig- 
nations of  the  Supreme  Deity,  and  are  employed  to  distin- 
guish him  from  all  the  beings,  to  whom  the  name  (^«c)  God 
was  applied  in  a  subordinate  sense  ;  4lh,  Because  in  all  such 
ascriptions  of  praise  the  words  ^^for  ever,''  or  the  equivalent 
expressions,  if  introduced  at  all,   are  placed   at  the  end  of 
the  sentence  as   in  this  example ;  5th,  Because  the  position 
of  these  words  at  the  end  of  the  sentence  naturally,  though 
not  necessarily,  draws  the   participle («'^^«>'<'^«)   *'  Blessed," 
which  they  qualify,   to  the  same  quarter  ;  6th,  Because  in 
P<.  Ixviii.  19.  (Kug/oc  0  S^ssc  wxo^DToc)  the  participle  is  placed  in 
the  latter  part  of  the  sentence  by  the  Saptuagint  translators, 
contrary  to  the  assertion  of  Dr.  Whitby  in  his  Commentary  ; 
rih,  Because,   although  the  participle  comes  first  in  every  ^i 

other  instance,   a   sufficient  reason  for  its   being  so  placed  ji 

may  in  almost  all  these  cases  be  assigned,  viz.  that  the  name 
of  God  is  connected  by  the  relative  pionoun  (<=«)  with  one 


or  more  clauses,  the  interposition  of  which  wouk)  remove 
the  participle  to  too  great  a  distance  from  its  noun,  if  it 
were  thrown  back  to  fhe  end  of  the  sentence. 

These  reasons  appear  to  me  to  hav  e  so  much  weight,  that, 
if  1  were  not  checked  by  a  regard  to  the  opinions  of  those 
learned  men,  who  have  embraced  different  views,  I  should 
consider  this  passage  as  scarcely  even  ambiguous.  If  il  be 
ambiguous,  the  rule  to  be  followed  is  to  choose  that  translation, 
which  is  agreeable  to  the  known  sentiments  of  the  writer. 

I  therefore,  who  am  assured,  that  an  ascription  of  praise 
to  the  Supreme  God  was  conformable  to  the  opinions  of 
Paul,  but  not,  that  he  believed  Jesus  Christ  to  be  the  Su- 
preme God,  am  justified  in  adopting  the  Unitarian  transla- 
tion. 

Further,  where  the  opinions  of  the  writer  are  unknown, 
the  best  method  of  ascertaining  the  sense  of  a  dubious  ex- 
pression is  to  enquire  how  it  was   understood  by  those  per- 
sons, to    whom  he  directly   wrote.      In  the   present   case 
we  have   unusual  advantages  for  the  determinafion  of  this 
question.     Clement,  whom  Paul  mentions  (Phil.   iv.  3.)  as 
one  of  his  fellow-labourers,  was  afterwards  the  Bishop  of  Ih© 
Church  at  Rome,  to  which  society  this  Epistle  was  address- 
ed.  (See  Rom.  i.  7.)     There  is  extant  another   Epistle, 
written  by  Clement  in  the  name  of  the  Christians  at  Rome 
lo  the  Church  at  Corinth.     It  contains  various   sentiments 
imd  expressions,  derived  from  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Romans. 
(See  Lardner's  Credibility,  Ch.  II.)     Among  others  is  the 
Tollowing  clear  allusion  to  the  very  passage,  which  we   are 
low  examining,  Rom.  ix.  4,  5.     After  speaking  of  the  faiih 
md  piety   of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  the  privileges, 
vhich  in  consequence  of  their  virtues  were  bestowed  upon 
heir  posterity,  are  thus  described.     "  From  them  came  all 
he  priests  and  Levifes,  who  minister  at   the  altar  of  God  ; 
rom  him  (Jacob)   as  concerning  the  flesh  came  the  Lord 


198 

Jesus;  from  him  came  Kings,  and  Rulers,  and  Leaders,  in 
the  line  of  Judah."^'^  The  expressions,  here  used  by  Cle- 
ment, when  writing  in  the  name  of  that  Church,  to  which 
the  Epistle  of  Paul  is  inscribed,  afford  a  strong  presump- 
tion, that  both  he  and  they  conceived  the  sentence  alluded 
to,  to  end  with  the  words,  "  as  concerning  the  flesh  Christ 
came."  For  how  can  we  believe,  that  they  would  have 
abruptly  broken  off  the  quotation,  when  by  so  doing  they 
omitted  the  mention  of  that  circumstance,  which  was  be- 
yond comparison  the  most  glorious  privilege  of  the  decend- 
ants  of  Jacob,  vis.  the  manifestation  of  the  Supreme  God  in 
mysterious  union  with  the  human  nature  of  an  Israelite  ? 

The  manner,  in  which  this  passage  was  understood  by 
the  primitive  believers,  may  also  be  inferred  with  consider- 
able certainty  from  this  fact,  that  many  of  the  most  eminent 
Christian  writers  of  the  four  first  centuries  (see  Wetstein 
ad  loc.)  deny  in  decided  terms,  that  Jesus  Christ  was 
"  THE  God  who  is  over  all,"  {oin  ^ravTw  S^so?)  maintain- 
ing, that  this  title  belongs  exclusively  to  God  the  Father^ 
and  that  to  transfer  it  to  Christ  is  unpardonable  rashness  and 
impiety.  Such  assertions  they  would  not  have  advanced, 
if  they  had  supposed  the  words  "  God  who  is  over  all"  in 
this  passage  to  refer  to  our  Saviour. 

Lastlj",  it  may  be  remarked,  that  the  Interpretation,  which 
I  defend,  has  been  approved  not  only  by  the  generality  of 

Qiou-  iz  awTst/  0  Kwg/oc  I))(T0i/c  TO  Kctra.    o-agKA'  s|  stt/TOU    l^ita-tKlic,  xxt    ag;i^oVT6c  Mt 

vyovfAim-,  MT*  Tov  loi/fe-" — Clementis  Epist.  ad  Cor.  c.  XXXII. 

The  expression,  »st*  tov  loutfai-,  "  in  the  line  of  Jiidah,^^  in  the    last 
clause,  assists  to  explain  t5  x-nTtt  3-*gK4,  "  as  concerning  thejlesh,'"  in  the 
second  clause;  ami,  so  far  as  I  can  Judge,  justifies  the  translation  "by  h 
natural  descend  wliich  is  given  in  the  Improved  Version.     Mr.  Ward-     ' 
law  however  affirms,  that  to  understand  the  expression  in  this  sense  is  •  ' 
taking  "  a  most  arbitrary  freedom  with  the  words  themselves,  which  ^'* 
is  utterly  inadmissible,  and  deserving  of  the  severest  reprehension.      Sam 


199 

avowed  Unitarians,  and  by  some  very  celebrated  men  of 
suspected  orthodoxy,  such  as  Grotius  and  Wetsfein,  but 
also  by  three  at  least  of  the  most  learned  divines  belonging 
to  the  Trinitarian  party,  namely  Erasmus,  Bucer,  and  Le 
Clerc. 

The  various  evidences,  v^'hich  I  have  here  brought  to- 
gether to  determine  the  true  method  of  translating  this  verse, 
leave  in  my  mind  not  the  smallest  doubt,  that  instead  of 
"  WHO  IS  OVER  ALL  GoD  BLESSED  FOR  EVER,"  the  trans- 
lation ought  to  be,  "  God  who  is  over  all  be  blessed 
FOR  EVER."  If  this  is  the  meaning  of  St.  Paul,  how  bold, 
how  rash,  are  Mr.  Wardlaw's  animadversions.  He  affirms, 
that  the  clause,  so  translated,  is  "  deprived  of  all  force  and 
meaning  whatever,"  and  "converted  into  a  useless  and  unna- 
tural pleonasm,  which  adds  weakness  instead  of  strength  and 
propriety  to  the  expression  and  the  sentiment." 

The  next  example  of  the  application  of  the  title  God  to 
Jesus  is  Heb.  I.  8.  "  But  unto  the  Son  he  saith, '  Thy 
throne,  O  God,  is  for  ever  and  ever.' "  (Produced  p.  40,  68 
— n,  133,  181.) 

Grotius,  Dr.  Samuel  Clarke,  and  Mr.  Pierce,  with  many 
other  eminent  men,  have  remarked,  that  this  passage  may 
with  equal  propriety  be  translated,  "  God  is  thy  throne  for 
ever  and  ever."  How  does  Mr.  Wardlaw  reply  to  their 
observation  ? 

First,  by  his  manner  of  printing  their  proposed  transla- 
tion ; — "  God  is  thy  throne  I  /" — as  if  the  most  learned  and 
respected  theologians,  who  ever  wrote,  were  to  be  confuted 
by  sticking  up  a  few  notes  of  admiration. 

Secondly,  by  charging  them  with  ignorance  of  Greek  and 
"  a  glaring  departure  from  the  established  practice  of  Greek 
syntax."  The  man,  who  with  unhesitating  dogmatism  pre- 
fers such  accusations  as  these  even  against  Grotius  and 
Samuel  Clarke,  is  of  course  infinitely  above  my  notice ; 


^00 

iflor  shall  I  venture  to  contend  with  him  any  more  about  fhe 
use  of  the  definite  article  in  the  predicate  of  a  proposition. 
I  oiaj  however  state,  that  one  or  two  passages  have  come 
in  my  way  quite  incidentally,  while  I  have  been  writing 
this  Treatise,  and  request  him  to  say,  how  the  article  got 
into  the  predicates  of  the  following  propositions;  Rev.  xix. 

10.  «  "y-^  f^tt^Tu^lst,  rov   Ixa-oy  iTTi  to   TrvHifxa.  rn;  Tgo<f)«T6(af.     J  Cor.  xi.  3. 

TTxvTo;  avJ'go?  »  Kspx\]i  0  x^iTTo;  iTTi.  I  would  also  advise  any  of  my 
readers,  who  thinks  that  he  understands  Greek,  to  look  at 
these  passages ;  and  then  he  may  consult  Dr.  Middlelou 
and  the  Eclectick  Review,  if  he  pleases. 

Although  there  is  no  disputing  the  observation  of  the 
learned  men  above  referred  to,  that  the  original  may  with 
equal  grammalkal  propriety  be  translated  ''God  is  thy 
throne,"  and  although  nothing  can  be  more  puerile  than  Mr. 
Wardlaw's  objection,  that  the  expression  "God  is  the  sta- 
bility of  thy  throne  for  ever  and  ever,"  conveys  no 
sense  in  the  least  degree  peculiar,  because  God  is  the  sta- 
bility of  all  thrones  for  a  limited  time  ;  yet  the  want  of 
a  parallel  form  of  expression  inclines  me  to  prefer  the  com- 
mon translation,  "  Thy  throne,  O  ^od,  is  for  ever  and 
ever," 

I  shall  have  occasion  in  the  latter  part  of  this  Chapter 
to  show,  that  the  words,  with  which  the  quotation  is  intro- 
duced, "  Unto  the  Son  he  saith,"  do  not  denote  an  address 
to  the  Son.  But  at  present  the  only  question  to  be  deter- 
mined is.  Whether  the  word  "God"  is  here  to  be  under- 
stood in  its  highest  sense  as  denoting  the  Supreme  Divinity, 
or  in  its  inferionr  sense  as  signifying  a  person,  authorized, 
commissioned,  and  inspired,  to  declare  the  will  of  God  to 
mankind.  In  order  to  remove  every  doubt  upon  this  sub- 
ject, it  appears  only  necessary  to  bring  forward  the  entire 
quotation  ;  "  Thy  throne,  O  God,  is  for  ever  and  ever :  a 
sceptre  of  righteousness  is  the  sceptre  of  thy  kingdom-: 


I 


2^1 

thou  hast  loved  righteousness  and  hated  iniquity  ;  therefore 
God,  even  thy  God,  halh  anointed  thee  with  the  ''il  of  glad- 
ness above  thy  fellows.'''' — Can  the  all-perfect  Jehovah  be 
anointed  ?  Can  any  thing  be  imparted  to  hitn,  or  his  eternal 
glory  receive  any  increase  ?  Is  there  any  being  in  existence, 
who  can  be  called  his  God  ?  Can  the  God,  who  is  supreme 
overall,  have  a  Superiour  l — Either  these  questions  must  be 
answered  in  the  affirmative,   to  the  subversion  of  piety  as 
well  as  common   sense,  or   it  must  be  conceded,  that  the 
invocation,  "  O  God,"  is  to  be  understood  according  to  the 
inferiour  sense  of  the  name.     Th.us  interpreted,  the  prophe- 
cy may  be  compared  witli  the  words  of  the  angel  io  Mary, 
(Luke  i.  32,  33.)  denoting,  that  the  dominion,  which  Christ 
was  to  exercise    "for  ever  and  ever,"  was  to  be  conferred 
iiponhimhy  a8uj)eriour,evenhy  ^^  the  Lord  God  J"*    "He 
shall  be  great,  and  shall  be  called  the  Son  of  the  Highest : 
and  the  Lord  God  shall  give  unto  him  the  throne  of   his 
father  David  :    and  he  shall  reign  over  the  house  of  Jacob 
for  ever  ;  and  of  his  kingdom  there  shall  be  no  end." 

Mr.  Wardlaw  properly  omits  taking  any  notice  of  1  John 
iii.  16.  "Hereby  perceive  we  the  love  of  God,  because 
he  laid  down  his  life  for  us,"  since  there  is  nothing  corres- 
ponding  to  the  phrase  "  of  God^'  in  the  original  Greek. 

We  proceed  therefore  to  1  John  v.  20.  "  We  know,  that 
the  Son  of  God  is  come,  and  hath  given  us  an  understand- 
ing, that  we  may  know  Him  that  is  true,  and  we  are  in  him 
that  is  true,  even  in  {or,  by)  his  Son  Jesus  Christ.  This 
is  the  true  God,  and  eternal  life."  (p.  35 — 39,  41,  56, 
129.)  Our  author  endeavours  to  confirm  the  application  of 
the  last  sentence  to  Jesus  Christ  by  two  arguments. 

First,  he  maintains,  that  the  pronoun  "  This"  ought  to 
be  referred  to  the  nearest  antecedent,  which  is  "Jesus 
Christ."  To  this  argument  I  reply,  in  the  first  place,  that 
the  words    <*  Jesus   Christ"    are   marked   as  doubtful   i« 

27 


202 

Griesbach's  edilio.'i  of  ihe  Greek  Teslainenl.     Griesbach 
does  not  reject  them  from  the  texf,  but  only  gives  it  a?  his 
opinion,   that  their  genuineness  is  uncertain,  at   the  same 
time  stating  the  evidence  for  that  opinion.     Now,  if  these 
ivords  be  omitted,  the  nearest  antecedent  is  the  word  («fT^«) 
"  /tis,"  which  refers  to  God.     There  is  however  no  occasiun 
to  have  recourse  to  the  supposition,  that  the  words  "JesifS 
C//rt.s/"  are  spurious.     It  is  granted,  that  the  pronoun  does 
not  always  refer  to  the  nearest  antecedent.     We  have  an 
instance  to  the  contrary  in  the  2d  Epistle  of  John,  the  7lh 
verse.     "  Many  deceivers  are  entered  into  the  v/orld,  w  ho 
confess  not,  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  ihe  flesh.     This 
is  a  deceiver,  and  an  antichrist."     In  this  verse,  as*  in  the 
passage  under  consideration,  the  nearest  antecedent  to  the 
pronoun  is    "Jesus  Christ."     The  same  argument  there- 
fore, which  is  employed  in  the  one  case  to  prove,  that  Jesus 
is  "  the  true  God,''''  would  be  equally  valid  in  the  other  to 
prove,  that  he  is    "a  deceiver  and  an  antichrist.^*     Other 
examples  of  the  use  of  («ot8j)  «  This**  referring  to  the  more 
remote  antecedent,   may  be  seen  in   Acts  iv.  11.  vii.  19. 
But,  replies  Mr.  Wardlaw,  the  sense  of  these  passages  is 
clear ;    because  by  supposing  the  pronoun   to  refer  to  the 
nearest  antecedent,  you  make  the  Scriptures  speak  non- 
sense.— True,    my    friend ;     and  so    do  you,   when  you 
assert,  that  "  This  is  the  true  God**  signifies  ^' Jesus  Christ 
is  the  true  God."     A  person,  not  previously  instructed  in 
the  doctrines  of  Trinitarianism,  would  at  the  first  glance 
perceive  this  Sentiment   to  be  so  false  and  absurd,  that  he 
would  immediately  refer   the  pronoun   to  the  more  remote 
antecedent,  forming  an   instantaneous  judgment,   that  the 
Apostle  did  not  intend   to  represent  Jesus  Christ  as    "the 
true  God**  any  more  than  to  describe  him  as    "a  deceiver 
and  an  antichrist.**     The  primitive  Christians,  who  were 
equally  strangers   to  both  of   these  impossibilities,  would 


203 

without  hesitation  refer  the  pronoun  to  the  more  remote 
ai>;e;  e'Jent  m  both  cases  alike.  1  maintain  therefore  wilh 
IM;.  Belsham,  that  the  cases  are  "s/?»*7rtr,"  though 
by  so  doing  I  incur  that  most  unreasonable  charge,  which 
you  have  directed  against  him,  of  a  want  of  candour. 

The  second  argument  advanced  to  prove,  that  the  person 
ht,e  asserted  to  be  "  the  true  God"  is  Jesus  Christ,  is  that 
the  same  person  is  also  called  ^^  ettrnal  life.^^  The  ex- 
pcession  will  be  allowed  by  all  to  be  figurative.  It  means, 
t.iat  (he  person,  so  called,  was  the  giver,  or  the  promiser 
of  eternal  life.  It  is  maintained  by  Unitarians,  as  a  great 
and  'eadiijg  principle  of  their  system,  that  all  the  blessings, 
coniiiunicated  to  mankind  through  Jesus  Christ,  originate 
in  the  wisdom  and  goodness  q/'f/je  one  True  God.  Agree- 
ably to  this  general  maxim,  they  assert,  that  the  Father 
promises  and  gives  eternal  life  through  Jesus  Christ.  The 
Father  therefore  is  properly  *'  the  eternal  life :"  Jesus 
Christ  is  also  "the  eternal  life,"  but  in  an  inferiour  sense. 
Hence  St.  Paul  observes,  "  Eternal  life  is  the  gift  of  God 
THROUGH  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord." 

Rut  Mr.  VVardlaw  further  objects.  If  the  interpretation 
proposed  by  Unitarians  be  true,  "  what  occasion  was  there 
for  the  ApostWs  remark  .^"  Against  such  reasonings  we 
ought  careffdly  to  guard.  If  we  study  the  Scriptures  with 
true  humility  and  piety,  we  shall  never  ask.  What  occasion 
is  there  for  this  or  that  ?  or  encourage  ourselves  (o  suppose, 
that  one  observation  may  be  misplaced,  a  second  trivial, 
and  a  third  unnecessary.  We  shall  be  thankful  for  every 
portion  of  God's  word  as  it  is,  and  endeavour  to  improve 
it  wisely.  Such  questions  might  be  raised  by  idle  and  im- 
pertinent readers  against  innumerable  expressions  in  the 
Sacred  Writings,  owing  in  a  great  measure  to  the  difference 
of  style  between  them  and  modern  compositions.  In  this 
particular   instance   however  we  have   no  opportunitv  for 


204 

-  exercising  that  humble  and  grateful  spirit,  which  I  am  re- 
commending ;  so  obvious  is  the  propriety  and  force  of  the 
Apostle's  remark.  He  is  not  satisfied  witli  mentioning  the 
Supreme  Being  once  or  twice  under  the  ausfust  tille  of 
"/<jm  that  is /n/f,"  but  he  repeats,  "The  being  of  whom  I 
speak  is  the  True  God  and  the  giver  of  eternal  life,"  as  a 
solemn  admonition  to  adhere  to  his  worship,  to  obey  his 
will,  and  to  seek  his  favour.  Thus  he  naturally  introduces 
the  affectionate  exhortation,  "  hitlle  children,  keep  your- 
selves from  idols." 

Mr.  Wardlaw  concludes  the  instances  of  the  application 
of  the  title  God  to  our  blessed  Jjord,  by  producing  a  class 
of  texts,  in  which  the  argument  depends  upon  the  supposed 
usage  of  the  Greek  language  with  respect  to  the  definite 
article,  "a  usage,"  as  he  says,  "ascertained  beyond  all 
controversy  by  the  learning  of  recent  criticks."  He 
"  mentions  only  two  of  these  texts  as  a  specimen  of  the 
whole." 

2  Peter  i.  1-  "  Simon  Peter,  a  servant  and  an  apostle  of 
Jesus  Christ,  to  them  that  have  obtained  like  precious  faith 
with  us,  through  the  righteousness  of  God  and  our  Saviour 
Jesus  Christ." 

A  considerable  number  of  the  modern  advocates  of 
Trinifarianism  have  proposed  to  render  the  last  clause, 
"  through  the  righteousness  of  ovr  God  and  Saviour,  Jesus 
Christ."  The  Unitarians  have  allowed,  that  the  original 
words  bear  this  interpretation.  Mr.  Wardlaw  in  his  usual 
positive  manner  asserts,  "  There  cannot  be  a  doubt,  that,, 
according  to  the  established  principles  of  Greek  syntax, 
this  is  their  only  just  translation." 

Titus  ii.  13.  "Looking  for  that  blessed  liope,  and  the 
glorious  appearing  of  the  great  God  and  our  Saviour  Jesijfs 
Christ." 


205 

Here  also  many  learned  and  excellent  men  among  the 
orthodox  have  preferred  to  translate  the  last  words,  "  the 
glorious  appearing  of  our  great  God  and  Saviour,  Jesus 
Christ.^'  The  Unitarians  admit,  that  this  translation  does 
not  violate  the  grammatical  construction.  Mr.  Wardlaw  in 
a  bolder  tone  asserts,  that  *'  to  express  the  precise  sense 
of  the  original,  they  ought  to  be  thus  rendered,"  and  that, 
"  if  they  be  understood  otherwise,  they  are  unquestionably 
a  misinterpretation." 

The  confident  assertions  of  our  author  concerning  the 
established  and  incontrovertible  rules  of  the  Greek  language 
with  regard  to  the  definite  article,  ill  agree  with  the  remark 
of  a  Trinitarian  critick  of  the  highest  celebrity,  that  "  ii 
has  puzzled  all  the  grammarians  to  reduce  the  use  of  this 
article  to  any  clear  and  certain  ntZ^s."  Lowth's  English 
Grammar,  note  3.  I  have  already  quoted  a  passage  to  the 
same  effect  from  one  of  the  most  learned  and  able  advocates 
of  flie  Trinitarian  system.  Bishop  Pearson  ;  and  I  believe 
all  the  most  eminent  criticks  agree  with  him  concerning  the 
irregular  use  of  the  article  in  the  Greek  Testament,  although 
they  state  their  opinions  with  that  modest  simplicity,  which 
usually  accompanies  sound  learning,  and  without  any  of  the 
imposing  airs  of  theological  empiricism. 

When  I  consider  the  subject  without  reference  either  to 
my  own  or  any  other  system,  my  opinion  upon  these  two 
passages  is,  that  the  common  translation  of  them  is  prefer- 
able, although  the  other  mode  of  rendering  them  does 
not  violate  any  rule  of  syntax.  I  ground  my  judgment 
upon  the  following  considerations.  We  find  in  the  New 
Testament  numerous  passages  in  rvhich  God  and  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  are  m,entioned  in  conjunction.  While 
they  resemble  one  another  in  this  one  circumstance,  they 
differ  in  an  endless  variety  of  ways  respecting  the  use 

©R    THE    OMISSION,    Uud   alsO    THE    ARRANGEMENT  of  Ul'- 


206 

tides,  pronouns,  and  adjectives.  Owing  to  these  irregu- 
larities, some  of  them  are,  considered  by  themselves,  am- 
biguous. But  others  can  only  be  translated  in  such  a 
manner,  as  to  make  a  clear  and  marked  distinction  between 
God  and  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  I  conceive,  that  the 
unambiguous  examples  ought  to  serve  as  our  guides  towards 
the  just  interpretation  of  those  passages,  in  which  the  sense 
is  not  fixed  by  the  grammatical  construction.  For  these 
reasons  the  received  translation  ought  to  be  followed  in  the 
passages  in  question,  even  though  no  regard  were  paid  to 
the  doctrines  of  the  Divine  Unity  and  the  inferiority  of 
Jesus  Christ. 

Mr.  Belsham  has  expressed  his  sentiments  upon  this  con- 
troversy in  the  following  terms  ; 

"  The  author  (Mr.   Belsham)   is  not  unapprized  of  the 
great  zeal  with  which  this  argument  for  the  proper  deity  of 
Christ,  from    the  construction  of  the  Greek  article,    has 
been  lately  resumed  and  pursued  by  that  eminent  philan- 
thropist, Granville  Sharp,  Esq.  and  his  learned  coadjutors 
Bishop  Burgess,   Dr.    Wordsworth,    and   Dr.    Middleton. 
That  many  of  the  observations  of  these  respectable  writers 
are  ingenious,  acute,  and  just,  as  far  as  the  Greek  language 
is  concerned,  is,  I  believe,  universally  admitted.     But  the 
witty  and  shrewd  writer  of  Six  more  Letters   to  Granville 
Sharp,  under  the  signature  of  Gregory  Blunt,  has  ably  and 
amply  refuted   the  argument  derived  from  this  principle  in 
support  to  the  doctrine  of  the  deity  of  Christ.     Indeed  it  is 
an  indignity  to  the  human  understanding  to   maintain  that  a 
doctrine,    which,    if  true,    would   shine    conspicuously    iq 
every  page  of  the  New  Testament,   should   depend  for  its 
evidence  upon  the  critical  use  of  the  Greek  article  by  the 
plain  and  unlettered   writers  of  the  New  Testament ;  to- 
gether with  what  would  be  equally  necessary,  the  immacu- 
tate  correctness  of  transcribers.  If  this  is  the  state  to  which 


i 


207 

the  controversy  is  reduced,  it  would  be  better  to  give  up 
ti  e  point  at  once.     A  doctrine  of  such  magnitude  as  the 
proper   deity  of  Christ,  must  have  clearer  and  more   sub- 
stantial evidence,  or    none  at   all.     That  Dr.  Middleton's 
theory  of  the  Greek  Article  will  not  bear  him  out   to  the 
extent  to  which  he  has  applied  it,   has  been  amply  and  sat- 
isfactorily shown  in  an  able  critique  upon  that  learned  and 
,  laliorious  treatise,  by  the  hand  of  a  master,  in  the  Monthly 
i  Review,  N.  S.  vol.  Ixii.     See  also  Mr.    Winstanly's  able 
i  Vindication,  &c.   in   reply  to  Mr.   Sharp." — Belsham's 
Calm  Inquiry,  p.  229,  note. 

Every  reader  of  good  feelings  and  a  tolerable  impartial 
judgment  must  admire  (he  handsome  manner,  in  which  Mr. 
Belshain  speaks  of  the  authors,  who  have  advanced  this 
new  Theory  of  the  Greek  Article.  Nor  will  any  but  the 
captious  and  irritable  be  offended  at  his  observations  upon 
the  validity  of  a  doctrine,  in  support  of  which  such  argu- 
ments are  so  strenuously  urged.  It  seems  to  me,  that  the 
utmost  Mr.  Belsham  can  be  charged  with  is  one  of  those 
strong  statements,  or  perhaps  over-statements,  to  which 
every  man  is  liable  in  defending  his  side  of  an  interesting 
question.  "  The  very  head  and  front  of  his  offending 
j  hath  this  extent,  no  more."  Mr.  Wardlaw  however  says, 
"Nothing  can  well  be  conceived  more  shamefully  disingen- 
uous." (p.  408.)  I  must  inform  him,  that,  if  his  expres- 
sions were  criticised  with  equal  rigour,  he  would  bleed  at 
every  pore ;  for,  page  after  page,  I  come  to  similar  over- 
statements, although  I  cannot  consent  to  weary  myself  and 
my  readers  with  refuting  them. 

I  shall  conclude  this  subject  with  observing,   that   Dr. 
Doddridge,  though  he  has   translated   the  last  words  of  2 
■  Peter  i.  1.  '^  of  our  God  and  Saviour,  Jesus  Christ"  sub- 
joins the  following  Note,  in  which  he  explains  himself  with 
l-his  usual  modesty  and  judgment.  "  The  order  of  the  original 


208 

\vords,"  says  he,  "rather  favours  this  translation, thongk 
I  confess  it  is  not  absolutelj  necessary,  and  it  may  be 
rendered  as  in  our  version,  'o/  God  and  our  Saviotir.'  " 
I  produce  this  remark,  not  only  as  a  pattern  of  the  proper 
mode  of  speaking  and  writing  in  such  cases,  but  because, 
in  Mr.  Wardlaw's  Note  E,  Dr.  Doddridge  is  introduced 
among  a  number  of  criticks,  who  have  given  the  same  trans- 
lation of  this  passage,  and  who  are  held  forth  as  forming 
"  altogether  a  noble  testimony  against  the  Soclnian  impiety." 
I  believe,  this  amiable  and  candid  author  would  have  been 
eager  to  decline  the  compliment.  At  any  rate,  his  Note 
shows,  that  he  did  not  consider  this  passage  as  a  proof  of 
the  Divinity  of  Christ,  and  I  should  not  be  surprised,  if 
others  of  this  numerous  band  were  impressed  equally  with 
him  against  their  own  will  and  conviction. 


Jehovah,  it  is  well  known,  is  used  in  the  Scriptures  of 
the  Old  Testament  as  the  peculiar  and  appropriate  name 
of  the  one  Supreme  God.  Mr.  Wardlaw  remarks,  "If  this 
name  therefore  is  directly  given  in  the  Scrlplures  to  the 
Messiah,  to  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  the  question  of  his  Supreme 
Divinity  ought  to  be  decided."  One  expects  this  obser- 
vation to  be  followed  by  some  passage  of  Scripture  assert- 
ing in  plain  terms,  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  Jehovah. 
But,  Instead  of  direct  IScripttire  testimonies,  Mr.  Wardlaw 
only  brings  forward  remote  deductions,  formed  by  the  com- 
parison of  one  set  of  passages  with  another.  We  might  re- 
ply, that  arguments,  so  complicated,  are  not  the  proper  kind 
of  evidence  to  establish  such  an  awful,  stupendous,  and  in- 
finitely important  doctrine.  But,  if  these  arguments  be  ex- 
amined, it  will  be  found,  that  they  are  not  only  very  per- 
plexed, but  completely  fallaciou«. 


209 

1.  Mr.  Wardlaw's  first  argument  to  prove,  tliat  the  title 
Jehovah  ia  applied  to  our  Saviour  is  the  following,  (p. 
39,  73—75,   133.) 

In  Luke  i.  16,  17.  the  Angel  says  to  Zaclrarias  concern- 
ing John,  •'  Many  of  the  children  of  Israel  shall  he  turn  to 
the  Lord  their  God  ;  and  fie  shall  go  before  Hun  in  the 
spirit  and  power  of  Elias,  to  turn  the  hearls  of  the  fathers  to 
the  childret),  and  the  disobedient  to  the  wisdom  of  the  just, 
to  make  ready  a  people  prepared  for  the  Lord."  This 
passage  asserts,  that  John  went  before  the  Lord  God. 
The  same  truth  is  apparent  from  the  words  of  the  prophet 
Isaiah,  (ch.  xl.  3,  4.)  the  reference  of  which  to  John  the 
Baptist  is  proved  by  Mat.  iii.  3.  Luke  iii.  4,  5.  John  i. 
23.  "  The  voice  of  him  that  crieth,  *  In  the  wilderness  pre- 
pare ye  the  way  of  Jehovah,  make  straight  in  the  desert 
a  high  way  for  our  God  :  every  valley  shall  be  exalted,  and 
every  mountain  and  hill  shall  be  made  low  :  and  the  crooked 
shall  be  made  straight,  and  the  rough  places  plain.'  "  Also, 
that  John  was  seut  before  Jehovah,  is  evident  from  Mai. 
iii.  1.  "  Behold,  I  will  send  my  messenger,  and  he  shall 
prepare  the  way  before  me, — saith  Jehovah  of  hosts." — 
Rutin  other  parts  of  the  Evangelical  History  we  find  it  as- 
serted, that  John  was  sent  before  Christ,  which  makes  it 
strikingly  evident,  that  Christ  Is  Jehovah.  *'  I  am  not  the 
Christ,"  said  the  Baptist,  "  but  I  am  sent  before  him,^^  and, 
"  that  he  should  be  made  manifest  to  Israel,  therefore  am  I 
come  baptizing  with  water."    (See  John  iii.  28.  i.  31.) 

The  argument  may  be  thus  summed  up,  John  went  be- 
fore Jehovah  ;  and  John  went  before  Christ  ;  therefore, 
Christ  is  Jehovah. — 1  Sam.  ii.  12.  "  The  sons  o/Eli 
were  sons  o/ Belial  ;"  therefore,  Eli  was  Belial. — Ex. 
XX.  2.  and  Deut.  v.  6.  He,  who  brought  the  Israelites  out 
of  Egypt,  7vas  Jehovah  ;  but,  by  Ex.  xxxii.T.  xxxlii.  1.  He, 
who  brought  the  Israelites  out  of  Egypt,  was  Mosjsa  ;  there' 

28 


^210 

fore,  Moses  was  Jkhovaii. — Such  arc  the  endless  absiu--^ 
dities,  which  woiiid  be  derived  from  liie  Scriptures,  by  pro- 
ceeding upon  the  principle  of  Mr.  Wardlaw's  argument,  that 
it  is  impossihlefor  Ike  same  thin^  to  he  asserted  in  Scrip- 
inre  concerning  two  different  beings. 

The  language,  emplojed  by  Isaiah  to  describe  the  office 
of  John  the  B.jp(isf,  is  conceived,  I  believe,  by  all  commen- 
tators to  allude  to  the  practices,  which  were  anciently  adopt- 
ed by  the  kings  of  the  earth,  when  they  visited  distant 
countries.  Owing  to  the  want  o( good  roads  and  oilier 
conveniences  for  travelling,  they  always  sent  before  them 
pioneers  to  assist  their  journey  by  filling  up  valleys  and 
cutting  down  hills  and  precipices,  and  by  taking  every  oili- 
er necessary  step  for  their  accommodation."^  According  to 
a  figure  of  perpetual  occurrence  in  the  New  Testament, 
Jehov'dh  came  at  the  commencement  of  the  Gospel  dispen- 
sation, travelling  in  the  greatness  of  his  might,  to  assume 
his  righteous  and  benignant  empire  over  the  minds  of  men. 
John  was  sent  before  him  to  prepare  his  way.  This  office 
lie  discharged,  (if  we  pursue  the  figure,)  by  proclaiming, 
that  THE  REiGiv  OF  GoD  (« /3«ir/A«(ot  tou 0«cu)  was  ttt  hand,  and 
by  filling  up  the  valleys  and  levelling  the  hills  ;  but,  (if  we 
speak  literally,)  by  calling  men  to  repentance,  by  turning 
many  of  the  children  of  Israel  to  the  Lord  their  God,  by 
exhorting  fathers  to  perform  the  duties  and  exercise  the 
affections  which  they  owed  to  their  children,  and  by  convert- 
ing the  disobedient  to  the  wisdom  of  the  just.  In  the 
beautiful  address  of  the  Angel  to  Zacharias,  we  Qrfd  figura- 
live  blended  with  literal  expressions.  But  the  simple  fact 
was,  tjiat  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel  was  to  produce  obe- 
dience to  the  laws  of  God,  and   that  John  prepared  for"  the 

*  See  Schleiisner's  Lexicon,  v.  c'cTo?,  wj'05g;^O;«ot<  et  Tr^-Tro^iuoficti.  Lc 
Clerc,  iMr.  W.  T^owth,  and  Bp.  I,owth,  on  Isa.  xl.  3.  Beza,  Le  Clerc, 
Hannnond,  Wetstein,  Grotius,  and  Whitby,  on  Mat.  Hi.  3.  Wbitby 
on  Luke  iii.  ft. 


211 

ei-ecllou  of  Ihis  spirilual  kingdom.  Underslaiuling  the  inel- 
api5orical  phrases  according  to  this  sense,  (and  i  know  not 
(hat  any  other  interpretation  has  ever  been  proposed,)  all 
Unitarians  believe,  that,  at  the  promulgation  of  the  Gospel, 
Jehovah  came  to  ride  over  the  world,  and  that  John  went 
bcfrre  him  as  his  messenger  and  pioneer  to  prepare  his 
way  ;  that  everxi  vaJleij  was  filled,  and  every  mountain 
and  hill  made  low  ;  that  the  crooked  paths  were  made 
straiirht,  and  therou^h  ways  smooth. 

Unitarians  also  believe,  that  John  was  sent  before 
Christ  ;  and,  if  Christ  be  figuratively  considered  as 
akino:,  coming  to  assert  that  dominion  over  mankind, 
which  had  been  fraiidnlently  and  violently  usurped  by  the 
tyrants  Vice  and  Superstition,  the  metaphor  may  be  pro- 
longed in  this  instance  also,  and  it  will  follow,  that  John 
cleared  and  levelled  the  way  in  order  to  facilitate  the  ma- 
jestick  march  of  this  spiritual  Sovereign.  The  passage 
however,  (John  iii.  28.)  which  is  used  in  relation  to  the 
coming  of  Christ,  and  which  asserts  that  John  was  sent  be- 
fore him,  does  not  seem  to  be  founded  upon  this  grand  and 
beautiful  imagery.  It  probably  signified  only,  that  John 
bes^an  to  preach  before  Jestis,  and  predisposed  men's 
ininds  to  acknowledse  him  as  the  Messiah. 

2.  Heb.  i.  10.  "And,  '  Thon,  Lord,  in  the  beginning 
hast  laid  the  foundations  of  the  earth.'  "  This  passage  is 
produced  p.  40,  75,84,  106,   lOr,  134,  136,  138. 

I  shall  grant  to  Mr.  Wardlaw,  that  the  word  Lord  ought 
here  to  be  considered  as  equivalent  to  Jehovah  ;  nor  am 
I  disposed  to  consider  this  passage  as  a  sudden  apostrophe 
to  God,  because,  although  this  interpretation  is  very  suit- 
able to  the  idiom  of  our  language,  I  know  of  nothing  par- 
allel to  it  in  the  Scriptures.  The  only  question  therefore 
is,  Whether  this  quotation  was  intended  by  the  writer  as 
nn  address  to  Christ.     In  order  to  settle  this  point,  it  h 


212 

necessary  to  fix  the  meaning  of  the  words,  by  which  the 
former  quolaiion  is  introduced.  In  the  common  version 
they  are  translated,  "Unto  the  Son  he  s«^7/^."  But  the 
preposition  Pro^,  here  rendered  Unto,  often  signifies  With 
reference  to,  or  Concerning.  It  is  so  used,  for  example,  by 
Paul  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  (viii.  31.)  where  he 
asks,  "  What  shall  we  say  to  these  things.'"'  The  mean- 
ing evidently  is,  "  What  shall  we  say  concerning  these 
things?"*  To  determine  whether  Pros  is  so  used  in  the 
clause  translated,  "Unto  the  son  he  saith,"  it  is  only  re- 
quisite to  go  back  to  the  preceding  verse,  in  which  the  same 
preposition  is  used  in  the  original,  and  certainly  in  the 
same  sense  :  ver.  7.  "  And  of  the  angels  he  saith,"  that  is, 
Concerning  the  angels,  or  With  reference  to  the  angels. 
Without  fear  of  being  contradicted  by  any  accurate  scholar, 
I  aflSrm,  that  the  exact  sense  and  only  allowable  translation 
of  the  inspired  author's  words  is  as  follows  :  ^ 

Km  f^iV  TTgit  TOW 

Verse;   7.    And,     on    the    ojie    hand,    concerning    the 

angels  he  saith,     Who    maketh   his    angels    spirits,  &c. 

Ver.  8.  But  on  the  other  hand,  concerning  the  son,  &c.f 
3.  The  Evangelist  John  (xii.  37 — 41)  makes  the  follow- 
ing remarks  upon  the  obstinacy  of  the  Jews  in  rejecting 
the  miracles  of  Christ ;  "  But  though  he  had  done  so  many 
miracles  before  them,  yet  they  believed  not  on  him  :  that 
the  saying  of  Esaias  the  prophet  might  be  fulfilled,  which 

*  For  other  instances,  see  Schleusncr's  and  Biel's  Lexicons,  v. 
Ilgo; ;  Glassii  Fhilol.  ."sacra,  L.  III.  tract.  6.  can.  5.  Wliitl'y  on  Heb.  i.  7. 

f  Ptn-.'iaps  I  might  go  farther.  I  am  inclined  to  believe,  that  irgof 
with  r.n  a<  cirative  is  n-  ver  iiscd  to  denote  an  address  to  any  one,  tliis 
being  signilied  by  the  dative  case  without  any  preposition.  To  intro- 
duce ai'  addrcs.':  to  I'l"  Son,  the  language  of  the  writer  would,  I  appre- 
hend,, iiave  been  t*  Js  w&j  Af>«/. 


'      213 

he  spake,  ' Lojd,  who  hath  believed  our  report  ?  and  to 
whom  hath  the  arm  of  the  Lord  been  revealed  ?'  Therefore 
they  could  not  believe,  because  that  Esaias  said  again,  '  He 
hath  blinded  their  eyes,  and  hardened  their  heart ;  that  they 
should  not  see  with  their  eyes,  nor  understand  with  their 
heart,  and  be  converted,  and  I  should  heal  them.'  These 
things  said  Esaias,  when  he  saw  his  glory,  and  spake  of 
him." 

The  word  "saw"  sometimes  signifies  ^'foresaw.^*  Thus 
Abraham  is  said  (John  viii.  56)  to  have  "  seen,*'  that  is,  to 
have  "foreseen**  the  day  of  Christ.  (See  also  John  xviii. 
4.  Acts  XX.  22.  where  the  same  word  is  used  in  the  origi- 
nal.) We  also  know  from  the  information  of  this  Evangelist, 
(see  John  ii.  11.)  that  the  way,  in  which  our  Lord  during 
his  publick  ministry  "  manifested  forth  his  glory,**  and  in- 
duced "his  disciples  to  believe  on  him,**  was  by  the  j^er- 
formance  of  miracles.  I  conceive  therefore,  that  every 
person,  reading  these  observations  of  the  Evangelist  John 
without  any  previous  bias  to  a  mysterious  and  far-fetched 
interpretation  of  them,  would  understand  the  following  to 
be  the  meaning  of  the  last  remark.  "  Isaiah,  when  he  ut- 
tered the  two  foregoing  prophecies,  contemplated  the  future 
glory  of  Christ  displayed  in  the  performance  of  miracles, 
and  spake  of  the  dulness  and  obstinacy  of  the  Jews  in  re- 
fusing to  attend  to  these  testimonials  of  his  Divine  autho~ 
rity." 

How  have  the  Trinitarians  contrived  to  deduce  an  argu- 
I  ment  for  the  Divinity  of  Jesus  from  this  plain  declaration  ? 
Upon  looking  to  the  chapter,  from  which  the  latter  of  the 
;  two  prophecies  is  quoted,  (Isa.  vi.)  they  discover  that  at 
j  the  same  time,  when  Isaiah  was  inspired  with  the  foreknow- 
I  ledge  of  the  rejection  of  our  Saviour's  miracles,  he  in  vision 
j  "saw  Jehovah  of  hosts,**  and  heard  the  seraphim  crying, 
j  "  The  whole  earth  is  full  of  His  glory."     Although  these 


214 

coincidences  are  certainly  a  little  remarkable,  Ihey  afford 
not  the  shauow  of  a  proof,  that  Jesus  is  Jehovah. 
Upon  this  patched-up  argument  however  Mr.  Wardiaw 
insists  as  if  it  was  profane  even  to  question  its  validity.  See 
p.  76,  77,  134. 

4.  Jer.  xxiii.  5,  6.  "Behold,  the  days  come,  saith  the 
Lord,  that  I  will  raise  unto  David  a  righteous  Branch,  and 
a  King  shall  reign  and  prosper,  and  shall  execute  judgaient 
and  justice  in  the  earth.  In  his  days  Judah  shall  be  saved, 
and  Israel  shall  dwell  safely  ;  and  this  is  his  name  whereby 
he  shall  be  called.  The  Lord  our  righteousness." 
(Produced  by  Mr.  Wardiaw,  p.  77,  134.) 

This  prophecy  was  uttered  by  Jeremiah,  when  his  coun- 
trymen were  captives  in  Babylon,  or  scattered  among  other 
heathen  nations.  It  evidently  relates  to  their  return  from 
the  captivity,  and  to  their  peaceable  re-establishment  in 
their  own  land.  In  verse  3.  it  is  predicted  that  God  would 
gather  together  the  remains  of  the  Jewish  nation  out  of  all 
the  countries,  into  which  they  had  been  dispersed,  and  that 
he  would  bring  them  again  to  their  own  territory,  where 
they  would  be  fruitful  and  increase :  in  verse  4.  that  He 
would  raise  up  for  them  overseers,  both  civil  and  religious, 
under  whose  superintendence  they  would  be  secure  from 
those  terrours,  alarms,  and  distresses,  with  which  they  had 
been  so  long  harassed.  In  verse  5.  it  is  added  that  the 
Lord  would  raise  up  a  successor  to  David,  who  would  reign 
prosperously  and  execute  justice  "  in  the  earth,"  or  rather, 
"in  the  land,^^  i.  e.  in  Judea.  "  In  his  days,"  continues 
the  Prophet,  "Judah  shall  be  saved,  and  Israel  shall  dwell 
safely  ;"  the  meaning  of  which  plainly  is,  that  during  the 
reign  of  this  expected  monarch  the  tribes  of  Judah  and 
Benjamin  would  be  safe  from  their  present  afflictions,  and 
the  kingdom  of  Israel,  including  the  other  ten  tribes,  would 
likewise  be  free  from  invasion  and  the  devastations  of  war. 


215 

**  And  this  is  his  name,  whereby  he  shall  be  called,  Thk 
Lord  our  righteousness."  The  sense  of  the  original 
may,  I  apprehend,  be  more  correctly  represented  thus ; 
"  And  this  is  the  name,  whereby  he  shall  be  called,  Jeho- 
v^AH  IS  OUR  PROSPERITY."  According  to  the  doctrine 
above  stated,  the  application  of  this  name  to  the  predicted 
king  only  signified,  that  during  his  reign  Jehovah  mould 
signally  bless  his  people  with  prosperity. 

If  any  reader  prefers  applying  these  words  to  the  MeS^ 
siah,  the  prophetical  application  to  him  of  the  name  Jeho- 
vah   IS  OUR  PROSPERITr,    Or    OUR    RIGHTEOUSNESS,    lHUSt 

^till  be  understood  as  signifying,  that  during  his  reign  Je- 
hovah would  bestow  abundant  blessings  upon  mankind. 

The  same  title  is  again  employed  in  the  33d  chapter,  the 
whole  strain  of  which  shows,  that  the  return  of  the  Jews 
from  captivity  and  their  happy  re-establishment  in  the  land 
of  Judea  is  the  subject  of  the  prophecy.  The  only  mate- 
rial difference  is,  that  in  this  instance  (verse  16)  the  name 
.Tehovah  is  our  PROSPERITY  IS  givcn  prophetically  to 
Jerusalem,  which  shows  the  extreme  fragility  of  the  argu- 
ment for  the  Deity  of  Christ  founded  upon  the  application 
of  this  title,  whether  it  was  really  intended  for  bim  or  not. 

5.  Zech.  xiii.  7.  *'  Awake,  O  sword,  against  my  shep- 
herd, and  against  the  man  that  is  my  fellow,  saith  Jehovah 
of  hosts.''     (Produced,  p.  72,  134.) 

The  word  ^^ fellow'"  signifies  a  person  associated  and 
co-operating  with  Jehovah  in  the  superintendence  of  his 
people  and  the  accomplishment  of  his  purposes.  To  pro- 
duce this  passage  as  one  in  which  "the  name  Jehovah  is 
directly  given  to  Jesus  of  Nazareth,"  proves  nothing  but 
the  exigency  of  the  case. 

6.  Zech.  xi.  12,  13.  «  They  weighed  for  my  price  thirty 
pieces  of  silver.     And  the  Lord  said  unto  me,    Cast  it 


216 

anto  the  potter:    a  goodly  price  that  I  was  prized  at  of 
them."     (Produced  p.  77".) 

M.  Wardlaw  gives  no  comment  on  these  words :  but  I 
presume  his  argument  would  proceed  upon  the  assumption, 
that  the  words,  "  a  goodly  price  that  I  ivas  prized  at  of 
them,^'  are  a  part  of  the  speech  of  Jehovah.  That  this 
assumption  is  erroneous  appears  from  the  beginning  of  the 
12lh  verse,  which  Mr.  Wardlaw  has  omitted.  "And  / 
(that  is,  the  Prophet)  said  unto  them,  '  If  ye  think  good, 
give  me  my  price,  (that  is,  the  price  of  the  Prophet,)  and, 
if  not,  forbear.'  So  they  weighed  for  my  price  (that  is, 
as  the  price  of  the  Prophet)  thirty  pieces  of  silver;  and 
Jehovah  said  unto  me,  *  Cast  it  unto  the  potter  ;'  a  goodly 
price  that  I  (the  Prophet)  was  prized  at  of  them." 

7.  Rom.  xiv.  10, 11.  "  We  shall  all  stand  before  the  judg- 
ment-seat of  Christ  :  for  it  is  written,  "As  1  live,  saith  the 
Lord,  ((hat  is,  saith  Jehovah^  see  Isa.  xlv.)  every  knee 
shall  bow  to  me,  and  every  tongue  shall  confess  to  God.'* 
(Quoted  p.  77,  134.)  |i 

These  words  exactly  accord  with  the  Unitarian  doctrine, 
that  "  God  shall  judge  the  world  in  righteousness  through 
that  man  whom  he  hath  ordained.""  At  the  general  judg- 
ment every  one  of  us  shall  be  rewarded  or  condemned  by 
Jehovah.  But,  as  it  is  necessary  that  some  visible  and 
corporeal  being  should  act  as  mediator  between  the  Omni-- 
present  Spirit  and  mankind,  Christ  will  occupy  "  the 
judgment  seat,"  and  declare,  as  the  vicegerent  of  God,  tho 
innocence  or  the  guilt,  the  reward  or  the  punishment  of 
those  who  appear  before  him. 

8.  1  Cor.  i.  30,  31.  "Of  him  are  ye  in  Christ  Jesus, 
who  of  God  is  made  unto  us  wisdom,  and  righteousness,  and 
sanctiiication,    and  redemption ;    that,  according    as    it    is 
written,  He  that  glorieth,    let  him  glory  in  the  Lord. 
/Produced  p.  77,  78,  134.) 


J? 


217 

That  the  tille  Lord  is  here  equivalent  to  Jehovah,  is 
evident  fioin  the  passage  of  Isaiah  alluded  to  by  the  Apostle. 
Isa.  xlv.  25.  The  meaning  evidently  is,  that  men  should 
glory  in  God,  by  whom  Christ  has  been  made  unto  them 
Wisdom  and  Righteousness  and  Sanctification  and  Re- 
demption. 

These  are  all   the  examples    which  Mr.  Wardlaw  has 
collected  of  the   application   to  Christ  either  of  the  title 
Jehovah,  or  of  other  titles  equivalent  to  it.    He  however  in- 
I  ti mates,  that  these  titles  are  given  to  our  Saviour  in  a  variety 
1  ef  less   decisive  passages,    (p.  77.    13).)    observing  that, 
I  "  If  conviction  be  produced  by  these  instances,  such   con- 
viction will  nalurallj  lead  to  the  application  of  the  name  to 
Jesus,  in  many  others,  which  may  not  at  first  view  appear 
\  so    obvious ;"    to    which  remark  1   beg  leave  to   append 
another,   that,  if  these  instances  be  utterly  irreletant,  the 
I  many  other  proofs  must  be  less  than  nothing  and  altogether 
I  vanity. 


i9 


218 


CHAPTER  VI. 

fiXABIINATION  OF  THE  PASSAGES,    IN  WHICH  THE    PECCHAR  ATTRIBUTES 
OP  DEITY  ARE  SUPPOSED  TO  BE  ASCRIBED  TO  CHRIST. 

Mr.  Wardlaw's  Second  head  of  "  direct  and  imme- 
diate proofs"  consists  of  those  passages,  in  which  he  sup- 
poses the  peculiar  altributes  of  Deity  to  be  ascribed  to  our 
Saviour.     He  "  confines  himself  to  the  four  followins;  ;" 

ETERNAL  EXISTENCE,  ALMIGHTY  POWER,  OMNIPRESENCE, 
and  OMNISCIENCE. 

I.  Eternal  existence. 

1.  John  viii.  58.  "  Jesus  said  unto  them,  *  Verily,  verily, 
I  say  unto  you,  before  Abraham  was,  I  am.'  "  (Produced, 
p.  40,  79—84,  135.) 

Mr-  Wardiaw  remarks  concerning  this  passage,  "  Our 
Lord  expressly  affirms,  that  he  existed  before  Abraham." 
The  truth  of  his  observation  will  be  admitted  probably  by 
all  Unitarians,  who  believe  in  the  pre-existence  of  Christ. 
The  attribute  now  in  question  is  his  eternal  existence.  That 
the  words  of  Jesus  are  any  evidence  of  this  attribute,  Mr. 
Wardiaw  himself  represents  as  dubious.  After  sounding 
his  "shrill  clarion"  through  three  pages  over  the  Socinian 
expositors,  he  observes,  "  The  idea,  which  has  often  been 
suggested,  is  far  from  being  destitiile  of  probability,  that 
there  was  in  our  Lord's  words  an  allusion,  perceived  by 
the  Jews,  and  rendered,  perhaps,  e7ni)hatical  by  his  man- 
ner, to  the  words  of  God  to  Moses,  '  I  am  that  I  am.'  "  p. 
83.  As  our  author  here  expresses  himself  with  beconiing  hesi- 
tation and  modesty,  1  only  wonder  that  he  has  introduced 
this  passage  among  " //te  direct  and  immediate  proofs'^  of 
our  liord's  Divinity.  I 


1 


\ 


219 

2.  Heb.  i.  10.  "And,  'Thou,  Lord,  in  the  beginning 
hasf  laid  the  foundalions  of  the  earth.'  " 

In  the  last  Chapter,  it  was  proved,  that  these  words  are 
not  addressed  to  Christ.  The  author  of  the  Epistle  (ver- 
8 — 12.)  introduces  two  quotations  from  the  Psahns,  as  re- 
ferring to  the  authority  of  Jesus.  The  first  describes  the 
stability  of  his  throne,  and  the  equity  of  his  government. 
The  second  represents  the  eternity  and  immutability  of 
Jehovah,  his  God,  as  a  pledge  of  the  firm  foundation  of  his 
kingdom. 

3.  Col.  i.  17.  "He  is  before  all  things."  (Produced  p. 
S4,  103,  138,  140.) 

In  the  15th  verse  of  this  Chapter,  Christ  is  called  "  the 
first-born  of  every  creature,"  which  is  a  direct  testimony, 
that  he  was  not  an  eternal,  but  a  created,  being.  Nor  is 
this  assertion  contradicted  by  the  phrase,  "  he  is  before  all 
things."  For,  even  if  we  suppose  it  to  mean,  not  "  he  is," 
but  "  he  was  before  all  things,"  and  if  we  were  to  grant 
that  "  before  all  things"  signifies  pre-existence  in  time,  and 
not  pre-eminence  in  dignity,  still  it  could  only  signify, 
that  he  existed  before  all  things  except  himself  and  God.  It 
proves  therefore,  at  the  very  utmost,  nothing  more  than  our 
Lord's  existence  before  the  creation  of  the  universe. 

4.  Rev.  i.  8.  "lam  Alpha  and  Omega,  the  beginning  and 
the  ending,  saith  the  Lord,  which  is  and  which  was  and 
which  is  to  come,  the  Almighty." 

I  have  formerly  observed,  (P.  I.  ch.  3.  §  1.)  that  the 
true  reading  of  this  passage,  (the  reading  found  in  Gries- 
bach's  text,)  is  as  follows  ;  "  I  am  Alpha  and  Omega,  saith 
the  Lord  God,  who  is  and  who  was  and  who  is  to  come, 
the  Almighty."  Since  St.  John  attributes  these  words  to 
the  Supreme  Gody  they  cannot  prove  any  thing  respecting 
Jesiis  Christ. 


220 

Expressions  of  similar  import  with  the  title  "  Alpha  and 
Omega^^  are  applied  to  God  in  several  parts  of  the  prophe- 
cies of  Isaiah,  relating  to  the  deliverance  of  the  Jews  from 
captivitj  through  the  inslrumentalitj  of  Cyrus  and  the 
Persians.  See  Isa.  xli.  4.  xliii.  10.  xliv.  6.  xlviii.  12. 
These  passages,  as  Le  Clerc  observes,  are  all  intended  to 
describe  that  superintending  providence  of  God,  which  com- 
prehends the  past,  the  present,  and  the  future.  When  the 
Almighty  is  said  to  be  "  the  first  and  the  last,"  the  mean- 
ing of  the  expression  is,  that  he  is  contemporary  with  the 
earliest  and  the  latest  events  in  that  chain  of  causes  and 
effects,  by  which  he  accomplishes  his  stupendous  coun- 
sels. This  remark  is  beautifully  adapted  to  the  series  of 
occurrences  referred  to  by  the  prophet  Isaiah.  It  appears 
equally  suitable  at  the  commencement  of  a  prophetical  nar- 
ration of  the  successes  and  calamities,  which  were  appoint- 
ed by  the  Almighty  for  the  Christian  church. 

5.  Rev.  i.  17.  "I  am  the  first  and  the  last.'*  Rev.  xxii. 
13.  "I  am  Alpha  and  Omega,  the  beginning  and  the  end, 
the  first  and  the  last."  (p.  41,  86.  136.) 

The  expressions  contained  in  both  these  passages  are 
the  words  of  Christ.  They  ought  to  be  interpreted  in 
the  sense,  which  we  have  just  given  to  them  when  ascribed 
to  the  Supreme  Being.  They  signify  that  Jesus  Christ  is 
contemporary  with  the  earliest  and  the  latest  events  in  that 
dispensation,  over  which  he  has  been  ordained  by  the 
Almighty  to  preside,  and  that  he  is  consequently  qualified 
for  all  the  honours,  the  exertions,  and  the  duties  of  his 
august  station.  "  They  are  not  intended,"  as  Mr.  Belshani 
observes,  "  to  express  self-existence,  but  solely  that  the 
Christian  dispensation  was  begiui,  and  will  be  completed  hy 
Christ,  who  is  the  author  and  the  finisher  of  our  faith." 
Calm  Inquiry,  p.  269. 


221 

In  both  cases  the  application  of  the  words  "  first  and  last" 
to  our  Lord,  is  so  guarded  as  to  exclude  the  idea  of  his 
Supieaie  Divinity.  In  the  Jirst  chapter,  after  being  de- 
scribed as  "  the  first  and  the  last,"  he  is  immediately  stated 
to  iiave  died.  This  shows  that  he  is  not  the  Being,  who 
alone  hath  immortality.  Every  person,  upon  reading  care- 
fully (he  tweedy-second  chapter,  will  perceive,  that  the 
speaker  in  ver.  13.  ("  I  am  Alpha  and  Oiuega,"  Sec.)  is  the 
same,  before  whom  John  fell  down  to  worship  him,  and  who 
forbade  him  in  these  remarkable  words  ;  ver.  9.  "  See  thou 
do  it  not  ;  for  I  am  a  fellow-servant  with  thee,  and  with  thy 
brethren  the  prophets,  and  with  them  who  keep  the  sayings 
of  this  book  ;  worship  God." 

6.  Micah  v.  2.  "  But  thou,  Beth-lehem  Ephratah,  though 
thou  be  little  among  the  thousands  of  Judah,  yet  out  of  thee 
shall  he  come  forth  unto  me  that  is  to  be  Ruler  in  Israel  ; 
whose  goings  forth  have  been  from  of  old,  from  everlasting." 
(p.  86.  136.) 

In  the  original  the  same  word  is  used  to  denote  his  "  com- 
ing fortli*'  in  the  former  part  of  the  verse,  and  his  "  going 
-forth^^  in  the  latter.  It  ought  doubtless  to  be  understood 
in  both  instances  according  to  the  same  sense.  In  the  form- 
er case  it  is  commonly  supposed  to  signify  the  birth  of  the 
Messiah  ;  "  Out  of  thee  shall  he  be  born  unto  me,  who  is 
to  be  a  ruler  in  Israel."  The  last  clause  must  therefore  be 
understood  thus  ;  "  JVhose  birth  has  been  of  old,  from  ever- 
lasting ;"  that  is,  "  Whose  birth  has  been  determined,  or 
appointed,  from  everlasting."  Even  though  the  expression 
*' goings  fortW^  should  be  referred  to  an  earlier  period  of 
our  Lord's  existence  than  his  birth  from  the  virgin  Marv, 
it  must  signify  generation  in  some  way  or  other,  and  there- 
fore favours  the  Unitarian  doctrine  that  he  had  a  begimiino'^ 
rather  than  the  orthodox  opinion  of  his  eternitj . 


222 

II.  Almighty  power. 

1.  "  This  Divine  attribute,"  sajs  Mr.  Wardlaw,  (p.  86.) 
"  is  plainly  ascribed  to  Christ  in  a  prophecy  of  Isaiah  for- 
merly quoted,  '  Uuto  us  a  child  is  born,  unto  us  a  son  is 
given  ;  and  his  name  shall  be  called — the  mighty  God.'  " 
But  the  doctrine  now  to  be  proved  is,  not  that  our  Saviour 
was  MIGHTY,  (for  this  is  granted,)  but  that  he  was  All- 
migiity,  that  his  will  was  irresistible,  and  his  power  unde- 
rived,  independent,  and  unlimited. 

In  addition  to  the  observations  formerly  offered  upon  this 
passage,  I  may  here  remark,  that  the  epithet  mighty,  uprni 
which  the  argument  depends,  is  applied  in  more  than  a 
Jmndred  passages  of  the  Old  Testament  to  mere  human 
beings.     (See  Taylor's  Concordance,  v.  Geber.) 

2.  Rev.  i.  8.  "  I  am  Alpha  and  Omega,  saith  the  Lord 
God, — THE  Almighty." 

If  any  credit  is  due  to  the  assertion  of  the  Sacred  writer, 
these  were  the  words  of  "  the  Lord  God,"  and  not  of  Jesus 
Christ.  As  is  generally  agreed  by  the  Christian  Fathers 
of  the  four  first  centuries,  the  word  ( navTox^AT^g)  here  trans- 
lated Almighty,  is  the  peculiar  designation  of  the  Father. 
It  is  nowhere  in  all  the  Scriptures  given  to  Christ. 

3.  Phil.  iii.  21.  "We  look  for  the  Saviour  from  heaven, 
who  shall  change  our  vile  body,  that  it  may  be  fashioned  like 
unto  his  glorious  body,  according  to  the  working,  (the  migh- 
ty energy,)  whereby  he  is  able  even  to  subdue  all  things 
unto  himself."  (p.  87,  136.)  "  Such  language,"  says  Mr. 
Wardlaw,  "cannot  with  propriety  be  used  respecting  any 
being,  who  is  not  possessed  of  omnipotence."  The  reader 
must  make  his  choice  between  this  unsupported  assertion, 
and  the  declarations  of  Paul  in  other  parts  of  his  Epistles, 
that  the  same  God,  who  raised  Jesus  from  the  dead,  will  also 
raise  mankind  through  the  instrumentality  of  Jesus,  and 
that  if  is  God  who  shall  put  all  things  under  his  feet."  (2 
Cor.  iv,  14.    1  Cor.  XV.  27.) 


223 

I  have  formerly  observed,  (P.  II.  ch.  7.)  that  the  questiou 
respecting  the  power  of  Christ  is,  whether  it  belonged  to 
him  originally  by  his  own  Divine  nature,  or  whether  it 
was  conferred  upon  him  by  a  Superiour.  By  producing  in 
order  all  the  passages  of  the  New  Testament,  which  relate 
to  the  power  of  Christ,  I  proved  the  Unitarian  doctrine, 
that  it  was  given.  Mr.  Wardlaw  has  not  even  attempted 
to  prove  the  contrary. 

III.  Omnipresence. 

Mat.  xviii.  20.  "  For  where  two  or  three  are  gathered 
together  in  my  name,  there  am  I  in  the  midst  of  them." 
xxviii.  20.  "  And  lo,  I  am  with  you  always  even  unto  the 
end  of  the  world."  (Produced  by  Mr.  Wardlaw,  p.  40, 
87—90,  137.) 

In  treating  of  omnipresence  as  an  attribute  o(  Christ,  Mr. 
Wardlaw  seems  to  have  forgotten,  that  he  has  no  distinct 
conception  of  it  as  an  attribute  of  God..  (See  above,  P.  I. 
ch.  4.)  So  far  as  can  be  inferred  from  his  language,  he  be- 
lieves only  in  the  virtual  omnipresence  of  God,  or  in  his 
power  of  producing  effects  in  every  part  of  space.  In  the 
same  sense  I  presume  he  understands  the  doctrine  of  the 
omnipresence  of  Christ.  If  so,  he  is  not  far  from  Scripture 
truth. 

The  words  of  Jesus,  which  have  just  been  quoted,  can- 
not properly  be  understood  except  as  a  promise,  that  wher- 
ever any  of  his  disciples  assembled  lo  offer  up  their  prayers 
to  God,  or  in  whatever  part  of  the  earth  they  were  employ- 
ed in  the  service  of  the  gospel,  Jesus  would  accomplish 
their  requests,  and  supply  them  vv  ith  all  requisite  encour- 
agement and  support.  Thus  understood,  they  are  most 
suifable  in  each  instance  to  the  context. 

Mat.  xviii.  19.  "Again  I  say  unto  you,  That  if  two  of 
you  shall  agree  on  earth,  as   touching  any  thing  that  they 


224 

shall  ask,  it  shall  he  done  for  them  of  my  Falher  which  is 
in  heaven."  Having  thus  assured  his  disciples  of  the  ful- 
filment of  their  united  petitions  to  Heaven,  our  Lord  assi:^ns 
a  reason  why  (heir  requests  would  be  granted  ;  "  For 
where  two  or  three  are  gathered  together  in  my  name,  (here 
am  I  in  the  midst  of  them."  The  connexion  therefore,  in 
which  these  words  are  intreduced,  shows,  that  he  only  in- 
tended to  describe  his  power  of  conferring  the  blessings 
for  which  they  prayed.  But  we  know  from  the  clear  and 
copious  Scripture  testimonies,  brought  together  in  a  former 
part  of  this  Treatise,  (P.  II.  ch.  7.)  that  Christ  uniformly 
exercised  his  power  in  subjection  to  God,  and  that  even  in 
his  present  exaUed  state  he  only  acts  as  a  suboidinate  agent 
in  accomplishing  the  decrees  of  (he  Almighty  Father.  Ac- 
cordingly, in  this  very  passage,  he  does  not  say,  that  he 
himself  would  by  his  own  independent  authority  fulfil  the 
prayers  of  his  disciples  :  on  the  contrary,  he  afSrms,  "  It 
shall  be  done  for  them  of  my  Falher  who  is  in  heaven.^^ 

The  similar  declaration  of  Jehovah  (o  Moses  (Ex.  xx.  24.) 
ought  to  be  interpreted  in  the  same  manner,  in  this  passage 
God  tirst  gives  a  command  respecting  the  proper  mode  of  of- 
fering prayer  to  him,  and  then  subjoins  sl  promise  that,  wher- 
ever such  prayer  should  be  offered,  he  would  accomplish  it : 
"  In  all  places  where  I  record  my  name,  /  7vill  come  tinto 
ikee  and  I  will  bless  thee.''  I(  is  eviden(  (ha(  (his  expres- 
sion describes  only  a  virtual  omnipresence.  A  spirit,  ex- 
tended through  all  space,  and  present  every  momen(  in 
every  part  of  it,  cannot  with  any  propriety  be  said  to  come 
to  a  person.  The  p.'irase  is  figurative.  It  represents  the 
Almighty  Father  of  the  universe  under  the  venerable  and 
endearing  image  of  a  friend,  whose  ears  are  ever  open  (o 
our  petitions,  and  who  flies  with  instant  solicitude  to  the 
relief  of  those,  who  cry  unto  him  for  help. 


225 

The  words,  "  Lo !  I  am  with  you  always  even  unto  the 
end  of  the  world,"  were  addressed  by  Jesus  to  the  eleven 
Ajjostles  immediately  before  his  ascension  into  heaven, 
when  he  sent  them  forth  to  preach  the  gospel  among  all 
nations.  (See  Mat.  xxviii.  16 — 20.)  The  observation  was 
intended  as  an  assurance,  that  during  their  whole  ministry 
Jesus  would  watch  over  them  with  a  tender  guardianship 
and  affection,  and  that  his  care  would  extend  to  them  in 
every  place,  preserving  them  from  the  dangers  to  which 
they  would  be  exposed,  and  enabling  them  to  exhibit  the 
miracles  by  which  the  truth  of  their  preaching  would  be  ir- 
resistibly confirmed.  This  promise  therefore,  although  very 
difTerent  in  the  mode  of  expression,  is  the  same  in  substance 
with  that  recorded  by  the  Evangelist  Mark  in  the  parallel 
passage:  (Mark  xvi.  17,  18.)  "  And  these  signs  shall  fol- 
low them  that  believe :  in  my  name  shall  they  cast  out 
devils  ;  they  shall  speak  with  new  tongues ;  they  shall  take 
up  serpents  ;  and  if  they  drink  any  deadly  thing,  it  shall  not 
hurt  them  ;  they  shall  lay  hands  on  the  sick,  and  they  shall 
recover ;"  after  quoting  which  words  the  Evangelist  remarks, 
(ver.  20.)  that  "  they  went  forth  and  preached  every  where, 
the  Lord  working  with  them,  and  confirming  the  word 
with  signs  following.'*  Thus  was  fulfilled  the  promise, 
recorded  in  different  terms  by  both  the  Evangelists.^ 

The  passages  therefore,  which,  to  bear  upon  the  topick  of 
Christ's  Divinity,  ought  to  prove  his  actual  omnipresence, 
that  is,  the  extension  of  his  substance  through  every  part  of 
space,  only  prove,  that  he  was  virtually  present  with  his 
disciples,  to  guard,  comfort,  and  assist  them  in  their  apos- 

*  [Where  is  the  difficulty  of  supposing  the  degree  of  power,  necessary 
to  the  literal  fulfiliaent  of  these  promises,  to  be  communicated  ?  No- 
thing is  proved  lor  the  Trinitarian  hypothesis,  until  it  be  proved,  that 
Jesus  possessed  in  an  infinite  degree   the  incommvnicable  power  ©f 

Jehovah.     Editor.] 

3© 


226^ 

folick  labours.  This  virtual  presence  being  merely  the  ex- 
ercise o( power,  the  consideration  of  it  belongs  to  that  head 
of  inquiry. 

John  iii.  13.  "  And  no  man  hath  ascended  up  to  heaven, 
but  he  that  came  down  from  heaven,  even  the  Son  of  man, 
which  is  in  heaven."     (Produced  p.  90,  38.) 

Notwithstanding  Mr  Wardlaw's  positive  assertion  (p. 
146.)  that  .his  text,  as  well  as  Rev.  i.  8.  and  1  John  v.  20. 
is  not  "  in  the  slightest  degree  touched  by  that  high  and 
vaunted  authority,"  I  can  assure  the  reader,  that  the  words 
"  who  is  n  heaven''^  are  marked  by  Griesbach  doi(bffiil. 
The  same  uncertainty  must  cleave  to  every  argument  found- 
ed upon  them  ;  and  this  uncertainty  is  multiplied  into  itself 
by  the  doubts  and  varieties  of  interpretation,  which  are 
found  among  orthodox  Commentators,  even  on  the  supposi- 
tion that  the  words  are  genuine.  Some  of  the  most  eminent 
Trinitarian  criticks,  (R.  Stephens,  Vatable,  and  Raphel,) 
have  supposed  them  to  signify  only,  "  No  man  is  acquainted 
with  the  counsels  of  God  so  fully  as  I  am."* 

IV.  Omxiscience. 

1.  Rev.  ii.  23.  "  I  (Jesus)  am  he  who  searcheth  the 
reins  and  hearts;  and  I  will  give  unto  every  one  of  you 
according  to  your  works."    (Produced,  p.  40,  90,  91,  137.) 

The  latter  clause  so  far  explains  the  former  as  to  prove, 
that  it  alludes  to  the  office  of  Jesus  Christ  as  the  Judge  of 
men.  In  order  that  he  may  be  qualified  '*  to  give  unto  every 
man  according  to  his  works,"  it  is  evidently  necessary,  that 
he  should  know  the  thoughts  and  dispositionsof  their  hearts. 
The  question  between  those  who  assert  and  those  who  deny 
his  Supreme  Divinity  is.  Whether  he  possesses  this  know- 
ledge of  himself,  or  whether  it  is  imparted  to  him  by  a  supe- 

*  [The  literal  acceptation  of  the  phrase  may  prove  the  pre-fxistence 
of  Jesus,  but  cau  prove  iiothiug  more.    Editor.] 


227 

j-iour.     The  question  Is  determined  bv  those  numerous  and 
posilive  declarations  of  Scripture  formerly  brought  forward, 
(P.  II.  ch.  6, 7.)  which  prove  that  he  was  instructed  by  the  Fa- 
ther, that  he  is  ordained,  authorized,  and  qualified  by  the  Su- 
preme God  to  execute  the  office  of  universal  judge.    Of  these 
passag;es  there  is  one  especially  decisive;  (Rom.  ii.   16.) 
"  God  shall  judge  the  secrets  of  men  through  Jesus  Christ.''^ 
To  this   evidence   Mr.  Wardlaw  chiefly  opposes  bold  as- 
sertion.— "  The  evidence  on  this  particular  may  be  brought 
within  very  short  compass ;  for  it  is  irresistibly  conclusive." 
"  Is  there  any  need  of  further  witness  ?  If  this  be  not  a  di- 
rect and  unqualified  claim  of  a  peculiar  Divine  prerogative, 
there  is  no  meaning  in  human  language,  and  to  '  search  the 
Scriptures'  for  clear  and  satisfactory  knowledge  mxx%^  be  a 
vain  and  fruitless  task." — But  he  also  insists  upon  the  ex- 
pression ^'- 1  am  he  that  searcheth"  as  more  expressive  than 
the  simpler  phrase  "  I  search."     His  argument  proceeds 
from  inattention  to  the  following  circumstances.     The  want 
of  the  present  tense  in  Hebrew  verbs  is  supplied  by  the 
participle,  following  the  pronoun,  agreeing  with  it  in  number 
and  person,  and  having  sometimes  the  definite  article  pre- 
fixed.    From  the  Hebrew  this  construction  has  been  trans- 
ferred into  the  Greek  of  the  Septuagint  and  of  the  New 
Testament.     For  example ;  the  expression,  "  /  am  he  that 
came  (it  should  be,  cometh)  out  of  the  army,"   (e?«  «/«'  o  «»«y 
e»  T«f  7rit^t/*^o\>,(,  1  Sana.  iv.  16.)  means  only,  "  /  co?ne  out  of 
the  army."     In   like  manner  "  /  am   he  that  searcheth" 
(Eya  iifAi  0  S5«y»*»)  signifies  nothing  more  than  "  I  search." 
(Eyi»  t^mu.'^     This  form  of  expression  is  what  criticks  call  a 
Hebraism^  and  "  no  book  in  the  whole  New  Testament  has 
so  many  Hebraisms  as  the  Apocalypse."     (Marsh's  Micha- 
eiis,  ch.  xxxiii.  §  6.)      It  would  in  my  opinion  have  been 
better  if  the  authors  of  the  common  translation,  like  the  edi- 
tors of  the  Improved  Version,  had  accommodated  the  words 


228 

of  Jesus  to  the  idiom  of  the  English  language.  This  would 
have  prevented  Mr.  Wardiaw's  remark,  that  the  terras  as- 
cribed to  our  Loid,  "  evidently  proceed  upon  the  express 
assumption,  that  this  is  the  exclusive  prerogative  of  owe  6c- 
ing  only." 

It  may  also  be  observed  in  reply  to  Mr.  Wardiaw's  argu- 
ments from  this  pas^^age,  that,  although  Solomon  at  the  dedi' 
cation  of  the  temple  (1  Kings  viii.  39.)  addressed  Jehovah 
as  alone  acquainted  with  the  hearts  of  men,  this  does  not 
contradict  the  supposition,  that  in  consequence  of  the  all- 
wise  procedures  of  the  Deity  subsequent  to  that  period, 
Christ  will  at  the  day  of  general  judgment  be  ejidued  with 
all  the  knowledge  of  men's  thoughts  and  dispositions,  which 
is  necessary  to  the  discharge  of  his  office. 

2.  John  ii.  24,  25.  "  He  knew  all  men,  and  needed  not 
that  any  should  testify  of  man ;  for  he  knew  what  was  in 
man."    (p.  40,91,  137.) 

A  profound  and  intimate  knowledge  of  human  nature  was 
absolutely  requisite  to  the  character  of  Christ  as  a  moral  and 
religious  instructer.  In  this  knowledge  he  was  transcend- 
ently  eminent.  According  to  his  own  account  it  was  im- 
parted to  him  by  the  Father.  (P.  II.  ch.  6.)  Mr.  Ward- 
law  has  not  attempted  to  prove  the  contrary.  The  Unita- 
rian doctrine  upon  this  subject  stands  hitherto  unassailed. 
In  addition  to  the  decisive  proofs  formerly  brought  forward 
I  now  add,  tJiat  the  woman  of  Samaria  (John  iv.  17 — 19) 
instead  of  Inferring  from  our  Saviour's  supernatural  know- 
ledge of  her  condition  and  behaviour,  that  he  was  the  om- 
niscient God,  appears  only  to  have  concluded,  that  he  was 
inspired  with  this  knowledge  by  the  Almighty:  "Sir," 
said  she,"  I  perceive  that  thou  art  a  prophet." 

3.  John  xxi.  17.  "  Lord,  thou  knowest  all  things."  (p. 
91,  137.) 


229 

The  force  of  this  proof  is  entirely  destroyed  by  the  ap- 
plication of  Ihe  very  same  language  to  Christians  in  general 
by  the  author  of  this  Gospel.  1  John  ii.  20.  "  Ye  have 
an  unction  from  Ihe  Holy  One,  and  ye  kiioiv  all  things.'* 
The  knowledge  here  attributed  to  Chrislians  is  represented 
as  arisiog  from  their  miction,  or  inspiration,  by  the  Almigh- 
ty. Why  might  not  the  knowledge  of  our  vSaviour  arise 
from  the  same  cause  ?  In  each  case  the  knowledge  of  all 
things  means  only  a  very  extensive  and  various  knowledge. 
For  the  word  ^^  All,'*  as  every  attentive  student  of  the 
Scriptures  knows,  is  in  numerous  instances  used  to  signify 
a  very  great  number  and  variety.  (See  Schleusner,  v. 
n«.) 

Mr.  Wardlaw,  towards  the  conclusion  of  his  Discourse 
on  the  Tides  and  Attributes  of  Christ,  introduces  the  tol- 
lowing  observations  ;  "  With  regard  to  all  those  texts,  which 
have  been  quoted,  no  attempt  is  made  to  prove,  that  upon 
the  ordinary  principles  of  construction  they  are  unfairly 
OY  unnaturally  rendered."  "  In  those,  of  which  a  different 
translation  is  proposed,  it  is  not  pretended  that  the  new 
rendering  is  more  consistent  with  the  rules  of  syntax,  or 
the  ordinary  usage  of  the  original  language,  than  the  old  ; 
but  only  that  the  words  are  capable  of  bearing  it, — that  it 
is  jfossible  for  them  to  be  so  translated." — If  the  cause  of 
orthodoxy  requires  to  be  supported  by  such  assertions  as 
these,  no  honest  man  will  engage  in  its  defence.  I  un- 
feignedly  hope,  that  Mr.  Wardlaw  did  not  consider  what  he 
was  saying  :  indeed  1  believe,  that  he  could  not.  It  is  my 
deliberate  opinion,  (and  all  Unitarians,  who  think  themselves 
capable  of  understanding  the  original,  will  probably  agree 
with  me,)  that,  in  the  very  few  instances,  in  which  we  de- 
part from  the  common  translation,  we  think  our  versions  at 
least  equally  fair,  natural,  and  obvious  with  those  of  Trin- 
itarians.    Our  translations,  we  conceive,  express  the  sense, 


230 

in  which  the  words  of  the  sacred  authors  would  be  imme- 
diately understood  by  those,  who  lived  in  their  age,  who 
used  their  language,  and  were  familiar  with  their  manners, 
faabifs,  and  sentiments.  Since  we  find  the  doctrines  of  the 
strict  Unity  of  God,  the  inferiority  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  the 
derivation  of  his  knowledge  and  power,  clearly  asserted  in 
many  hundred  passages  of  Scripture  ;  and  since  we  think 
the  doctrines  of  the  Trinity  and  the  Divinity  of  Christ,  as 
now  held  by  the  orthodox,  both  absurd  in  themselves  and 
contrary  to  the  general  tenour  and  plain  language  of  the  Bi- 
ble, we  should  be  justified  in  rendering  four  or  five  difficult 
passages  in  any  allowable  manner,  which  made  them  con- 
sistent with  our  primary  and  indisputable  principles.  The 
fact  however  is,  that  we  are  not  reduced  to  this  necessity. 


231 


CHAPTER  VII. 

EXAMINATION   OF  THB    PASSAGES,    IN   WHICH   THE    PECULIAR  WORKS   OF 
DEITV   ARE   SUPPOSED   TO   BE   ASCRIBED   TO   CHRIST. 

Mr.  Wardlaw  (p.  95)  "  affirms,  in  the  3d  place,  that 
WORKS  are  ascribed  to  Jesus  Christ  in  the  Scriptures,  to 
which  no  being  is  competent  but  the  Supreme  God." 

I.  First,  the  miraclbs  of  Jesus  are  produced  as  evi- 
dences of  his  Divinitj.  Mr.  Wardlaw  allows,  that  the  mi- 
racles themselves  are  no  proof  of  this  doctrine,  since  "  sim- 
ilar wonders  were  wrought  by  the  Prophets  before  and  by 
the  A-postles  after  him."  But  he  contends,  (p.  96 — 98, 
139.)  that  the  peculiar  manner,  in  which  our  Lord  per- 
formed some  of  his  miracles,  "  cannot  be  vindicated  from 
the  charge  of  presiimptuons  impiety^  except  by  supposing 
that  he  possessed  in  himself  the  power  necessary  to  their 
accomplishment." 

Thus,  it  is  related,  (Mat.  viii.  26.)  that,  when  a  storm 
had  arisen  on  the  lake  of  Tiberias,  "  He  arose  and  rebuked 
the  winds,  and  said  unto  the  sea,  '  Peace,  be  still !'  and 
immediately  there  was  a  great  calm."  These  words  re- 
mind us  of  that  Being,  of  whom  it  is  said  in  the  sublime 
language  of  the  Psalmist,  (Ps.  Ixv.  7.)  "  He  stilleth  the 
noise  of  the  seas  and  the  noise  of  their  waves,  and  the 
tumults  of  the  people."  But  it  would  have  been  presump- 
tuous impiety  in  Jesus,  if  he  were  a  created  being,  to  em- 
ploy expressions,  which  could  lead  his  fellow-creatures  to 
imagine  even  for  an  instant,  that  he  claimed  equality  with 
God.  Therefore,  he  was  the  uncreated  Jehovah,  the 
Supreme  Lord  of  universal  nature. 

Again,  we  are  informed  (Mat.  viii.  2,  3.)  that  "  there 
c^me  a  leper  to  Jesus,  doing  him  obeisance,  and  saying. 


232 

'  Sir,  ii'  thou  wilf,  thou  canst  make  me  clean.'  "  The 
Apostles,  on  occasions  paitlj  similar,  (Acts  iii.  12.  xiv. 
15.)  disclaimed  the  possession  of  inherent  and  Divine  pow- 
er; and  Moses  and  Aaron  were  punished  with  exclusion 
from  the  land  of  promise,  because  they  performed  a  miracle 
"  wi(h  inconsiderate  passion,  as  if  the  power  had  resided  in 
Ihem selves.'"  In  this  instance  however,  although  Jesus 
would  have  abhorred  to  saj  or  do  any  thing,  which  could 
possibly  be  interpreted  as  a  false  comparison  of  himself 
with  the  Almighty,  he  is  simply  stated  to  have  replied, 
"I  will  ;  be  thou  clean  :"  and  immediately  the  leprosy  was 
cleansed.  Therefore,  Jesus  '^possessed  in  himself 
nnderived  and  independent  power." 

The  arguments,  which  1  have  here  presented  in  a 
condensed  form,  appear  to  me  the  most  ingenious  and 
eloquent  pieces  of  reasoning  in  Mr.  Wardlaw's  volume. 
But  deplorable  is  the  condition  of  that  tottering  system, 
whose  advocates,  instead  of  relying  upon  plain  and  positive 
declarations  of  Scripture,  are  obliged  to  prop  it  up  by  far- 
fetched inferences,  and  by  imaginary  hints  and  allusions ; 
and  it  is  curious  and  entertaining  to  observe,  how  Reason, 
which  is  discarded  and  turned  out  of  doors,  whenever  her 
evidence  is  unfavourable  to  the  popular  system,  is  called 
up  again  to  the  tribunal  and  treated  with  all  possible  re- 
spect, when  it  is  conceived  that  she  can  serve  the  cause  of 
orthodoxy  even  by  suggesting  the  most  faint  and  distant 
analogies. 

I  might  bid  adieu  to  this  <irgument  without  any  further 
observations.  But  the  charge  of"  presumptuous  impiety" 
has  been  brought  against  the  holy  and  humble  Jesus  ;  he 
is  said  to  have  claimed  for  himself  as  his  original  possession 
an  unlimited  control  over  the  material  and  moral  world. 
Let  the  reader  call  to  mind  those  solemn,  explicit,  and 
often  repeated  declarations,  which  were  formerly  brought 


233 

forward,  (P.  II.  ch.  7 .  §  2,)  and  by  which  our  Lord  abso- 
lutely disclaimed  the  possession  of  inherent  power,  saying 
that  of  himself  he  could  do  nothing,  and  that  the  Father, 
dwelling  in  him,  did  the  works.  I  confess,  that  his  express 
assertions,  when  put  into  the  balance  with  the  eloquent  and 
ingenious  pleadings  of  one,  whose  talents  and  virtues  I 
highly  esteem,  weigh  more  in  my  mind  than  the  waters  of 
the  ocean,  when  placed  in  comparison  with  the  drop  that 
hangs  upon  the  bucket. 

I  have  formerly  shown,  that  it  was  our  Lord's  usual  prac- 
tice before  performing  a  miracle  to  offer  up  a  prayer  to  his 
heavenly  Father,  and  that  God  always  granted  his  petition 
by  performing  the  miracle  through  him.  Thus  we  see  the 
true  difference  between  his  mode  of  exhibiting  miracles  and 
the  conduct  of  Moses  and  Aaron,  who  instead  of  expressing 
by  a  humble  and  pious  behaviour  their  sense  of  dependence 
upon  the  Almighty  for  the  power  which  they  exerted,  gave 
way,  as  Mr.  Wardlaw  properly  expresses  himself,  to  "  in- 
considerate passion,"  and  cried  out  with  emotions  of  pride 
and  anger,  "  Hear  now,  ye  rebels  !  must  we  fetch  you  water 
out  of  this  rock  ?"  We  have  also  seen,  that,  although  the 
worshippers  of  Jupiter  and  Mercury  at  Lystra  were  induc- 
ed by  the  miracle  performed  by  Paul  and  Barnabas  to  be- 
lieve that  the  gods  had  come  down  to  them  in  the  likeness 
of  men,  and  tKus  occasioned  a  necessity  that  the  Apostles 
should  correct  their  gross  delusion  by  crying  out,  "We  also 
are  men  of  like  passions  with  you  ;"  yet  no  such  inference 
was  ever  drawn  by  the  better  informed  spectators  in  Judea 
and  Galilee,  before  whom  Jesus  displayed  his  miraculous 
powers,  and  he  consequently  was  never  called  upon  to  guard 
them  against  the  reception  of  that  heathenish  sentiment. 

II.  Lest  any  readers  should  not  be  "  fully  convinced" 
by  Mr.  Wardlaw's  reasonings  upon  the  miracles,  he  pro- 
ceeds to  show,   "  that  the  creation  of  all  things  is 

31 


234 

one  of  the    Works,    ascribed    in    the    Scriptures  to  Jesu?? 
Christ."      (p.  98—109,  188.) 

The  question  to  be  determined  is,  Whether,  supposing 
that  our  Saviour  created  the  material  universe,  he  accom- 
plished this  undertaking  by  his  own  inherent,  underived, 
and  unaided  omnipotence,  or  whether  he  was  employed  and 
empowered  to  fulfil  the  counsels  of  a  Superiour.  Mr. 
Wardlaw  affirms,  (p.  100.)  that  "  the  Scriptures  give  no 
countenance  to  the  idea  of  his  executing  this  work  as  a  su- 
bordinate agent,  a  mere  instrument,  inferiour  to  Jehovah." 
I  have  shown,  (P.  II.  ch.  7.  §  1.)  that  this  idea  is  expressed 
in  every  passage,  which  can  possibly  be  interpreted  as  at- 
tributing the  Avork  of  creation  to  Jesus.  Three  of  these 
passages,  (John  i.  3,  10.  Col.  i.  16,  17.)  together  with  the 
words  quoted  in  Heb.  i.  10.  as  referring  to  the  government 
of  Christ,  though  addressed  to  Jehovah,  form  the  ground- 
work of  such  severe  and  triumphant  criticisms,  extending 
Ihrough  ten  pages,  as  will  make  the  hapless  Unitarians 
smart  so  long  as  Mr.  Wardlaw's  critical  celebrity  shall  en- 
dure. 

3.  The  government  of  the  world  and  the  final 
JUDGMENT  are  works  ascribed  to  Jesus  Christ  in  numerous 
passages  of  the  New  Testament.  Mr.  Wardlaw  contends, 
that  they  cannot  be  performed  by  him,  unless  he  be  the 
Omnipotent  and  Omniscient  God.  (p.  107—1 13,  138,  413, 
415.) 

Before  he  proceeds  to  adduce  his  reasonings  In  support 
of  this  doctrine,  he  gives  his  readers  to  understand,  that 
Unitarians,  or  as  he  calls  them,  "  the  opposers  of  our  Lord's 
Divinity,"  set  aside  all  those  passages  of  Scripture,  which 
ascribe  dominion  and  judgment  to  Jesus  Christ,  doubling  or 
denying,  that  he  is  appointed  to  execute  these  offices  at  all. 
In  order  to  convey  this  impression  he  makes  several  quota-* 
lions  from  the  writings  of  Mr.  Belsham.     When  he  extract- 


235 

<-(i  (Iiese  quotations,  he  could  scarcely  avoid  observing,  that 
Mr.  Belsham  onlj  represents  the  idea^  expressed  in  them 
as  deserving  of  consideration,  peculiar  lo  himself,  or  con- 
fined to  a  few  Unitarians  only  :  (See  Belsharn's  Cahn  In- 
quiry, p.  318 — 345.)  and  he  must  know,  that  Unitarians  in 
general  consider  the  doctrine  of  the  final  judgment  of  man- 
kind through  Jesus  Christ  as  one  of  the  most  prominent 
articles  of  {]\q  Christian  revelation,  by  a  regard  to  which 
their  lives  ought  to  be  daily  regulated.  1  trust  all  candid 
inquirers  will  be  advised  not  to  take  their  opinions  of  Uni- 
tarianism  from  the  representations  of  its  enemies. 

In  a  former  part  of  this  Treatise,  (P.  II.  ch.  7.  §  3.)  1 
have  stated  and  defended  the  Unitarian  doctrine  concern- 
ing the  judgment  of  mankind  through  Jesus  Christ,  which 
is,  that  he  is  empowered  and  ordained  to  execute  these  ex- 
alted offices  by  the  one  true  God.  He  himself  asserted, 
that  ^^  the  Father  gave  him  authority  to  execute  judgment^'' 
and  various  explicit  declarations  of  Scripture  agree  with  the 
doctrine  of  Paul,  that  he  is  "  ordained  by  God  to  be  the 
judge  of  quick  and  dead."  These  clear  assertions  we  be- 
lieve ;  they  are  not  the  deductions  of  human  reason;  they  are 
authoritatively  taught  to  mankind  in  the  Scriptures  of  truth  ; 
Mr.  Wardlaw  does  not  call  them  in  question.  He  never- 
theless maintains,  that  our  Lord  is  not  competent  to  dis- 
charge the  office  of  universal  judge,  unless  he  be  perfect 
God  as  well  as  perfect  man.  But  he  does  not  pretend  that 
this  doctrine,  like  that  of  the  delegated  authority  of  Jesus, 
is  expressly  taught  in  the  Scriptures.  He  only  insists,  that 
it  may  be  proved  by  a  train  of  reasoning.  Leaving  the 
Scriptures,  he  endeavours  to  establish  it  by  the  followino- 
argument.  The  qualifications  essential  to  the  being,  who 
governs  and  who  is  to  judge  the  world,  are  Omniscience, 
Omnipotence,  and  Independence.  But  these  qualifications 
cannot  be  conferred,  and  belong  only  to  God.     Since  there- 


236 

fore  Jesus  Christ  governs  and  is  to  judge  the  world,  it  fol- 
lows that  he  is  the  Supreme  God. 

This  argument  relates  to  a  subject,  the  most  sublime  and 
awful,  and  far  removed  from  our  knowledge  and  experience. 
I  fear  therefore  to  maintain  my  side  of  tiie  question  in  the 
same  dogmatical  terms,  in    which  Mr.  Wardlaw  maintains 
his.     But,  with  a  conviction  that  the  Scriptures  alone  can 
afford   us  information  upon  this  subject,  and   with  great  re- 
luctance to  argue  the  point  at  all  upon  the  grounds  of  mere 
human  reason,  I  shall  venture  to  say,  that   the  qualifications 
of  Ouiniscience,  Omnipotence,  and  Independence,  do  not 
appear  to  me  essential  to  the  office    of   the   delegated  gov- 
ernour  and  judge  of  mankind.     I  do  not  see  any  reason,  why 
the  power  of  such  a  personage   should  extend  beyond   the 
world  over  which  he  presides,  or  why  his  knowledge  should 
comprehend   the   actions,  characters,  and  deserts,  not  only 
of  those  who  come  before  his  tribunal,  but  of  all  intelligent 
beings,  who  have  existed  in  other   regions   of  space  and  ni 
other  periods  of  eternity.     So  far  as  I  can  jndge,  the  power 
and  knowledge  of  such  an  exalted  person  may  rationally  be 
supposed  to  be  not  only  limiled,   but  also  derived  and  de- 
pendent.    It  is  only  requisite  that  he  possess  the  knoAvledge 
and  power  essential  (o  the  execntion  of  his  office  ;    how  he 
possesses  them,  whether  by  his  own  nature  or  by  derivation 
from  the  Almighty  and   Omniscient  God,   appears  to  be  of 
no  moment.     I  conceive  therefore  that  no   valid   objection 
can  be  brought,    from  the  improbability   of   the  doctrine  in 
the  view  of  unprejudiced  reason,   against  the  plain  and  ob- 
vious sense  of  (hose  passages  of  Scripture,   which  describe 
the  offices  of  Christ  in  his  exalted  state,  and  represent  him 
as  discharging  them  in  subordination  to  God  the  Father. 

In  his  Discourse  on  this  subject  Mr.  Wardlaw  asserts, 
that  the  necessity  of  Omniscience,  Omnipotence,  and  In- 
dependence, in  the  delegated  judge  of  mankind  is  so  obvious, 


237 

that  it  would   be  a  waste  of  time  to  prove   it,  and   that  lie 
must  be  sadly  pressed  by   his   system,  who  can  feel  a  mo- 
ment's hesitation  in  acknowledging  it.     In  a  note  however 
(Note  G,  p.  413.)  he  states  the  following  reasons,  why  it  is 
requisite  that  the  delegated  judge  of   mankind,   as  well  as 
the  Being  who  confers   upon    him   his   commission  and   au- 
thority, should  be  in  his  own  nature  nothing  inferiour  to  the 
Supreme  God  :  "  Divest  the  judge  of  his  Divine  Majesty  ; 
and  you  render  it  impossible  to  feel,  in  anticipating  our  ap- 
pearance before  him,  that  trembling  awe  which  the  thought 
of  the  future  judgment  ought  always  to  inspire.     We  do  not 
feel  as  if  satisfied    with   his  decisions.     The  necessity   of 
instant   unquestioning    submission,   under   which   the  mind 
sinks  in  the  contemplation  of  a  Divine  Judge,  ceases  to  im- 
press it.     We   begin  immediately  to   think  of  possible  er- 
rours,  and  of    appeal  to    higher   authority." — To  my  mind 
nothing  can  be  more  shocking  than  these  expressions.     For 
who,  but  the  most  proud,  profane,  and  hardened  wretch  can 
imagine  his    appearance  before  the  judgment-seat  of  Christ 
without  a  trembling  awe,  and  "  begin  immediately  to  think 
of  possible  errours  and  of  appeal  to  higher  authority  ?"     I 
have  so  good  an  opinion  of  the  author  of  these  dreadful,  and 
I  trust,  hasty  sentences  as  to  believe,  that,  if  it  shall  please 
God  to  spare  his  useful  life,  and  to    relieve  his   mind  from 
that  heavy  load  of  prejudice  under  which  it  labours,  he  will 
tremble  even  at  the  idea  of  having  employed  such  language, 
and  will  submit  to   have   his   actions   tried  and  his  destiny 
pronounced  by  any  being,  whom  God  shall  have  appointed 
to  be  his  judge. 


238 


CHAPTER   VIII. 

EXAMINATION    OF    THE    PASSAGES    IN    WHICH    SUPREME    WORSHIP    IS 
SUPPOSED    TO    BE    GIVEN    TO    CHRIST. 

Mr.  Wardlaw's  fourth  general  head  of  arguments  for 
the  Di-vhiity  of  Christ  consists  of  those,  by  which  he  en- 
deavours to  prove,  that  our  Saviour  is  "  represented  in 
Scripture  as  the  proper  object  of  that  worship,  which  can- 
not without  impious  idolatry  be  addressed  to  any  other  being 
than  the  Supreme  God." 

I.  In  the  first  place,  he  argues  from  the  worship  or  obei- 
sance offered  to  Christ  during  his  publick  ministry  upon 
our  earth.  But,  with  great  propriety,  he  omits  noticing 
the  intances  of  this  obeisance  particularly/,  because  in  the 
greater  number  of  them  "  the  kind  and  degree  of  intended 
homage  cannot  with  certainty  be  ascertained."  He  therefore 
only  offers  the  following  general  remark.  "In  some  of 
these  instances,  as  must  strike  every  reader  of  the  Gospel 
history,  there  is  so  striking  a  resemblance,  so  very  near  an 
approach  to  Divine  worship,  that  we  should  have  expect- 
ed a  creature  actuated  by  such  principles  as  were  formerly 
described,  tenderly  alive  to  a  sense  of  his  infinite  inferiorit}', 
and  jealous  of  the  glory  of  the  God  that  sent  him,  to  have 
said,  on  such  occasions,  as  the  Apostle  Peter  did  to  Corne- 
lius— '  Stand  up :  I  myself  also  am  a  man  ;'  or  as  the  angel 
lo  John,  when  he  fell  at  his  feet  to  worship  him ; — '  See 
thou  doit  not— worship  God.'  "   (p.  113,  139,  140.) 

The  observations,  v/hich  I  submit  to  the  candid  reader 
in  reply,  are  these. 

1.  We  know,  that  it  was  the  constant  practice  of  our 
Lord,  when  the  admiration  of  the  multitude  was  excited  by 


239 

Lis  discourses  or  his  miracles,  to  raise  their  minds  from  him- 
self to  God,  representing  the  Father  as  the  original  fountain 
of  his  wisdom  and  authority,  and  therefore  the  only  proper 
object  of  their  supreme  gratitude  and  veneration.  We 
know,  that  in  various  instances  the  spectators  did  entertain 
these  just  sentiments,  glorifying  God  for  having  given 
such  power  to  Jesus.  We  also  know,  that,  whenever  our 
Lord  claimed  or  encouraged  honour  towards  himself,  he  re- 
presented it  as  due  to  him  only  as  the  ambassador  of  the 
Supreme  God,  saying  that  "  all  men  should  honour  the  Son, 
as  (that  is,  l)ecause)  they  honour  the  Father  ;  for  he  that 
honoureth  not  the  Son,  honoureth  not  the  Father  who  hath 
sent  him.'^  We  do  not  know,  that  homage  was  ever  offered 
to  him  without  a  higher  reference  to  God,  and  that  he  ac- 
cepted it  without  a  hint  of  its  impropriety. 

2.  It  appears  to  me,  that  the  angel,  whose  conduct  Mr. 
Wardlaw  contrasts  with  that  of  Jesus,  was  Jesus  himself. 
I  shall  explain  my  reasons  for  this  opinion  by  producing  all 
the  passages  of  the  Apocalypse,  which  make  mention  of 
this  angel,  adding  such  brief  observations  as  appear  suitable 
to  confirm  the  proposed  view  of  the  subject. 

Rev.  i.  1,  2.  "The  Revelation  of  Jesus  Christ,  which 
God  gave  unto  him  to  show  unto  his  servants  things  which 
must  shortly  come  to  pass,  and  he  sent  and  signified  it  by 
his  Angel  {Jesus)  unto  his  servant  John  ;  who  bare  record 
of  the  word  of  God,  and  of  the  testimony  of  Jesus  Christ; 
and  of  all  things  that  he  sav,." — Here  observe,  First,  that 
jhe  words,  "  he  sent  and  signifed"  appear  in  the  original 
at  least,  if  not  in  this  translation,  to  refer  to  God  rather 
than  to  Jesus ;  2dly,  that  the  term  *'  angeV  or  "  messenger'^ 
is  applied  in  Scripture  to  any  being,  who  acts  as  the  me- 
dium of  communication  between  God  and  mankind  ;  3dly, 
that  John  is  said  in  the  second  verse  to  bear  record  "of 
the  testimony  of  Jesus  Christ,'^  and  not  of  an  angel  interme- 


240 

diate  between  Jesus  Christ  and  himself.  Accordingly  we 
find  from  what  follows,  that  Jesus  Christ  delivered  this 
tcstimonj  to  John  in  his  own  person.  See  the  ninth  and 
following  verses,  and  the  second  and  third  Chapters. 

The  same  Angel  is  probably  represented  as  speaking  to 
John  in  the  following  passages  ;  ch.  iv.  1.  x.  4.  8,  ll.'xi.  1, 
2,  3.  xii.   10,    II,  12.      These   passages  however  contain 
nothing,  which  tends  to  determine  the  question,  whether  the 
Angel  was  Jesus  Christ  or  an  intermediate   being  between 
him  and   John.     The   next  passage  is  somewhat  clearer. 
Ch.  xiv.  13,   14.    John  hears  a  voice  speaking  to  him  from 
heaven;  he  looks,  and  sees  in  the  heavens  a  white  cloud, 
upon    which    ^^  one    sits    like    nnto    the    son    of   man." 
This  seems  to  imply,  that  the  being  whose  voice  he  heard 
was  the  Son  of  Man,  Jesus  Christ.     All  reasonable  hesita- 
tion is  however  removed  by  the   two  remaining  passages, 
which  relate   to   the   intercourse    between   this  Angel  and 
John.     Ch.  xix.  9,  10.  ^^  And  he  saith  unto  me,  'Write, 
Blessed  are  they  which  are  called  unto  the  marriage-supper 
of  the  lamb.'      And  he   saith    unto  me,  '  These  are   the 
true  sayings  of  God  :'  and  I  fell  at  his  feet  to  worship  him. 
And  he  said  vnto  me,  '  See   thou   do   it  not ;  I   am   thy 
fellow-servant,  and   of  thy  brethren,  that   have  the    testi- 
mony of  Jesus  ;  worship  God  ;'  for  the  testimony  of  Jesus 
is  the  spirit  of  prophecy."     Rev.   xxii.    1 — 5.    "And  he 
showed  me  a  pure  river  of  Avater  of  life,  clear  as  crystal," 
&.C.    Ver.  6 — 17.   ^^  And  he  said  unto  me,  '  These  sayings 
are  failhfid  and  true ;'  and  the  Lord  God  of  the  hoi}'  pro- 
,  pljets  sent  his  angel  to    show  unto  his  servants  the  things 
which  must   shortly  be   done  :    behold,   I   come  quickly  : 
blessed  is  he  that  keepelh  the  sayings  of  the  prophecy  of 
this  book.'     And  1   John  saw  these  things  and  heard  them. 
And,  when  I   had  heard  and  seen,  I   fell  down  to  worship 
before  the  feet  of  the  angel  which  showed  me  these  things. 


241 

Then  saith  he  unto  me,  '  See  thou  do  it  not ;  for  I  am  thy 
fell©\r-seEvant,  and  of  thj  brelhien  the  prophets,  and  of 
them  which  keep  the  sayings  of  this  book :  worship  God.' 
And  he  saith  unto  me,  *  Seal  not  the  sayings  of  the  pro- 
phecy of  this  book  :  for  the  time  is  at  hand.  He  that  is 
unjust,  let  him  be  unjust  still ;  and  he  which  is  filthy,  let 
him  be  filthy  still ;  and  he  that  is  righteous,  let  him  be 
righteous  slill;  and  he  that  is  holy,  let  him  be  holy  still. 
And,  behold,  I  come  quickly ;  and  my  reward  is  with  me, 
to  give  every  man  according  as  his  work  shall  be.  I  am 
Alpha  and  Omega,  the  beginning  and  the  end,  the  first  and 
the  last.  Blessed  are  they  that  do  His  commandments,  that 
they  may  have  right  to  the  tree  of  life,  and  may  enter  in 
through  the  gates  into  the  city :  for  without  are  dogs  and 
sorcerers  and  whoremongers  and  murderers  and  idolators, 
and  whosoever  loveth  and  maketh  a  lie.  I  Jesus  have  sent 
mine  angel  to  testify  unto  you  these  things  in  the  churches. 
I  am  the  root  and  the  offspring  of  David,  and  the  bright  and 
morning  star.'  "  Here  we  may  remark,  1st ;  These  passages, 
(Rev.  xixt  9,  10.  and  Rev.  xxii.  1 — 16.)  are  so  similar, 
that  the  latter,  which  is  the  more  full  and  clear  of  the  two, 
may  properly  be  used  as  an  explanation  of  the  former ;  2dly, 
The  addresses  of  the  Angel,  who  gave  the  revelation  to  John, 
are,  in  various  parts  of  the  book,  introduced  with  this  for- 
mula, "  He  saith  (or,  said)  unto  »7ie,"  and,  in  the  two 
passages  just  quoted,  this  formula  appears  throughout  to  refer 
to  the  same  person  as  the  speaker  ;  3dly,  If  the  same  person 
be  the  speaker  throughout,  various  expressions  in  the  latter 
passage  prove  him  to  be  Jesus  Christ,  such  as,  ^' Behold^ 
I  come  quickly,^''  "  My  reward  is  with  me  to  give  every 
man  according  as  his  work  shall  6e,"  "/  am  Alpha 
and  Omega,  the  beginning  and  the  end,  the  first  and  the 
last,'^  "I  Jesus  have  sent  mine  angel  (John)  to  testify 
imto  you  these  things  in  the  churches  j"  4thly,  la  the  6th 

82 


242 

Terse  of  Ihe  22f]  chapter,  Ihe  speaker  says  to  John,  "  The 
Lord  God  of  the  Holy  prophets  sent  his  angel,  {I  would 
interpret  it,  "  The  Lord  God  of  the  holy  prophets  hath 
sent  me,  his  angel,)  to  show  unto  his  servants  the  things 
that  must  shortli/  be  done  ;"  by  supposing  the  speaker  to 
be  Jesus  Christ,  we  perceive  a  close  resemblance  between 
this  passage  and  the  words,  with  which  the  book  opens, 
"  the  revelation  of  Jesus  Christ,  which  God  gave  unto  hiniy 
to  show  unto  his  servants  things  which  must  shortly  come 
to  pass  ;"  5thly,  The  reply  delivered  in  each  instance  to 
John,  when  he  fell  down  to  worship,  is  wrongly  translated 
in  the  common  version  ;  the  true  sense  of  these  passages, 
as  given  by  Doddridge  and  others,  is  as  follows  ;  ch.  xix. 
10.  "  And  I  fell  before  his  feet  to  worship  him:  but  be 
saith  unto  me,  *  See  thou  do  it  not ;  I  am  a  fellow-servant 
(of  God)  with  thee,  and  with  thy  brethren  who  have  (that 
gift  of  prophecy  w  hich  is)  the  testimony  to  Jesus  :  worship 
God.'  For  the  testimony  to  Jesus  is  the  spirit  of  prophe- 
cy." Ch.  xxli.  9.  "  And  he  saith  unto  me,  '  See  thou  do 
it  not ;  I  am  a  fellow  servant  (of  God)  with  thee,  and  with 
thy  brethren  the  prophets,  and  with  them,  who  keep  the 
sayings  of  this  book:  worship  God.'  " 

Such  are  the  reasons,  which  induce  me  to  believe,  that 
there  was  no  intermediate  angel  between  our  Saviour 
and  John,  but  that  Jesus  Christ  himself  delivered  the  rev- 
elation lo  the  writer  of  the  book.  The  supposition  of  an 
intermediate  angel  is  not  only  gratuitous  and  destitute  of 
all  fonndatior!,  but  is  allowed  to  be  encumbered  with  great 
difficulties.  The  other  supposition  reduces  the  whole  book 
to  greater  clearness  and  consistency,  and,  I  doubt  not,  would 
have  occurred  to  all  readers  as  the  obvious  and  indisputa- 
ble meaning  of  the  writer,  if  it  had  not  aflbrded  strong  evi- 
dence against  tlie  popular  doctrine  of  tjbe  Divinity  of  Christ. 


243 

TI.  The  second  proof,  produced  by  Mr.  Wardlaw,  that 
<our  Lord  accepted  without  a  hint  of  its  impropriety  the 
homage  due  only  to  God,  is  the  exclamation  of  Thouias, 
"My  lord  and  my  god  !" 

I  have  formerly  observed,  that  this  exclamation  of  aston- 
ishment and  delight  includes  a  confession  on  the  part  of 
Thomas,  that  Jesus  was  his  master  and  his  inspired  in- 
structer  in  religion  and  virtue.  Although  therefore  the 
mode  of  expression  was  strong  in  proportion  to  the  strength 
of  the  Apostle's  feelings,  it  did  not  exceed  the  truth,  and 
tiie  reply  of  Jesus  was  perfectly  proper,  "Thomas,  be- 
cause thou  hast  seen  me,  thou  hast  believed  ;  blessed  are 
they,  that  have  not  seen,  and  yet  have  believed.^' 

ill.  In  the  third  place,  Mr.  Wardlaw  produces  (p.  116, 
117,  118,  140.)  a  class  of  passages,  which,  in  the  common 
translation  of  the  Bible,  contain  the  phrase,  "  calling  on 
the  name  ofihe  Lord  "  or  "  of  ClvristJ'^ 

From  our  author's  confident  language  it  is  evident,  that 
he  saw  through  this  subject  in  an  instant  by  a  glance  of  in- 
spiration. I  am  less  highly  favoured.  I  have  spent  a 
whole  day  in  examining  all  the  passages,  where  the  word 
{ivu^w^fAAi)  translated  "  to  call  iipon^^  occurs,  carefully  com- 
paring the  Hebrew,  the  Greek,  and  the  English.  In  the 
evening  I  rest  from  my  labour  with  a  persuasion,  that  much 
may  be  said  on  each  side  of  the  question,  and,  instead  of 
being  able  to  form  a  very  decided  opinion,  I  am  inclined 
to  consider  this  as  one  of  the  difficulties  left  in  revelation 
for  the  purpose  of  inculcating  humility  and  candour. 

The  passages,  brought  forward  by  Mr.  Wardlaw,  are  as 
follows. 

Acts  ii.  21.  *«  And  it  shall  come  to  pass,  that  whosoever 
■shall  call  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord  shall  be  saved." 
Rom.  x.  11,  12,  13.  "  For  the  Scriptures  saith,  '  Whoso- 
ever believeth  on  Him  shall  not  be  ashamed.'     For   there 


244 

is  no  difference  between  the  Jew  and  the  tireek  ;  for  the 
same  Lord  over  all  is  rich  unto  all  that  call  iipon  him  ; 
for,  *  Whosoever  shall  call  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord 
shall  be  saved.'  "  The  last  words  are  quoted  from  the 
prophecy  of  Joel,  (ch.  ii.  32.)  Thej  signify,  that  every 
one,  who  in  a  season  of  distress  called  upon  God  for  assist- 
ance, would  be  delivered  from  danger  and  affliction.  The 
occurrence  of  the  word  Jehovah  in  the  original  Hebrew 
proves,  that  He  is  the  being  here  intended  ;  nor  does  the 
irain  of  St.  PauVs  reasoning  afford  any  ground  to  believe, 
that  he  makes  mention  of  the  worship  of  Christ.  The  sen- 
timent, Avhich  he  expresses,  is.  evidently  this  ;  that  "  God, 
•who  is  no  respecter  of  persons,  but  who  accepts  the  sincere 
endeavours  of  all  in  every  nation  w  ho  fear  and  obey  him, 
makes  no  difference  between  the  Jew  and  the  Gentile  mere 
]y  on  account  of  their  extraction,  but  is  rich  in  mercy  and 
beneficence  to  all  in  every  part  of  his  creation,  who  cry 
un(o  him  for  help." 

The  reujaining  passages  of  this  class  refer  not  to  Jehor 
vah,  but  to  Christ. 

Acts  ix.  14.  *'  And  here  he  hath  authority  from  the 
chief-priests  to  bind  all  that  call  on  thy  name.'*  Ver.  21. 
"  Is  not  this  he  that  destroyed  them,  nhich  called  on  this 
J7«me  in  .Jerusalem."  xxii.  16.  "  Arise  and  be  baptized 
and  wash  away  thy  sins,  calling  on  the  name  of  the  Lord.'' 
1  Cor.  i.  2.  "Unto  the  church  of  God  which  is  at  Co- 
rinth, to  them  that  are  sanctified  in  Christ  Jesus,  called  to 
be  saints,  with  all  that  in  everyplace  call  npon  the  name 
of  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord." 

It  is  not  disputed,  that  these  passages  may  be  so  trans- 
lated without  any  offence  against  critical  propriety.  But 
it  is  also  certain,  that  the  original  words  may  equally  well, 
as  far  as  respects  grammar,  be  translated  thus  ;  "  And 
here  he  hath  authority  irom  the  chief-priests   to   bind  all, 


245 

that  are  called  by  thy  name  :"  "  Is  not  this  he  that  destioy- 
ed  them,  who  are  called  by  this  name  in  Jerusalem?" 
"  Arise,  and  be  baptized  and  wash  aivaj  fhj  sins,  taking 
upon  thyself  his  name  :^'  "To  the  church  ofGodwhich  is 
at  Corinth,  to  them  that  are  sanctified  in  Christ  Jesus  call- 
ed to  be  saints,  with  all  that  in  every  place  are  called  by 
the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord.*^ 

When  I  laid  down  the  general  principles  to  be  followed 
in  investigating  the  sense  of  the  Scriptures,  I  observed,  thai, 
if  a  passage  of  the  New  Testament  admits  of  being  translat- 
ed in  two  different  ways,  the  sludent  ought  to  desist  from 
making  a  choice  between  them,  until  the  doctrine  of  Scrip- 
ture is  ascertained  by  other  unambiguous  expressions. 
This  maxim  applies  to  the  class  of  passages  under  consider- 
ation. He,  who  is  convinced  upon  other  grounds,  that  sup- 
plication to  Christ  was  the  common  practice  of  the  primi- 
tive  believers,  is  justified  in  adopting  the  translation  of  these 
passages,  which  is  accommodated  to  that  supposition.  On 
the  other  hand,  he  who  finds  no  certain  evidence  of  the 
prevalenceof  prayer  to  Christ  among  the  first  disciples,  is 
right  in  adopting  that  translation,  which  gives  consistency 
to  the  sense  of  Scripture. 

At  the  end  of  the  Epistle  of  Clement  to  the  Corinthians, 
(a  work  of  almost  apostolick  authority,)  this  designation  is 
employed  in  circumstances,  which  seem  to  determine  its 
exact  meaning.  "  May  the  God,  who  surveys  all  things, 
the  sovereign  of  spirits  and  the  Lord  of  all  flesh,  who  hath 
chosen  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  us  through  him  to  be  a 
peculiar  people,  give  to  every  soul,  who  is  called  by  his 
glorious  and  holy  name,^  faith,  fear,  peace,  patience,  for- 
bearance, temperance,  chasteness,  and  prudence,  so  as  to 

*  A*i)  TTcti-ti  -{vXJ^  *viKi)t>jiy.in  TO  (xiyaxmeivti  nxt  nytov  ovo/u.a.  autov.  Tlie  use 
pf  iTTutKhnfjiivi^y  in  the  passive  voice,  instead  of  sjr/oaixot/^svti,  wliich  may 
^e  either  the  passive  or  the  middle,  determines  the  sense. 


^6 

\ye  well-plcivsing  to  his  name,  through  our  high-priest  and 
advocate  Jesus  Christ,  through  whom  to  Him  be  glory  and 
majesty,  might  and  honour  both  now  and  forever.  Amen." 
We  know  therefore,  that  "/o  be  called  by  the  name  of 
Chrisf^  was  a  designation  employed  in  the  apostolick  age  (o 
denote  the  profession  of  the  Christian  religion.  We  do 
not  know,  until  it  be  proved,  that  the  primitive  believers 
invoked  Christ  in  prayer,  or  called  upon  his  name.  The 
former  interpretation  therefore  is  certainly  agreeable  to  fact ; 
the  latter  may  be  conducive  to  errour. 

To  be  called  by  the  name  of  a  person  is  a  phrase  of  very 
frequent  occurrence  in  the  Sacred  Scriptures.  It  signifies 
to  belong  to  that  person.  Deut.  xxviii.  10.  Moses,  having 
promised  to  the  children  of  Israel  the  blessing  of  God  upon 
their  obedience,  adds,  "  And  all  people  of  the  earth  shall 
see,  that  thou  art  called  by  the  name  of  Jehovah^  and  they 
shall  be  afraid  of  thee."  The  descendants  of  Abraham 
are  said  to  be  called  by  the  name  of  Jehovah  in  several  other 
passages;  (2  Chron.  vii.  14.  Isa.  xliii.  7.  Jer.  xiv.  9.  xv. 
16.  Dan.  'x.  19.)  the  expression  signifies,  that  they  be- 
longed tu  Jehovah  as  his  worshippers  and  the  objects  of 
his  protection  and  favour.  In  like  manner,  the  temple  at 
Jerusalem,  (1  Kings  viii.  43.  Jer.  vii.  10,  11,  14,  30. 
xxxii.  34.  xxxiv.  15.)  the  city  of  Jerusalem  itself,  (Dan. 
ix.  18,  19.)  the  ark  of  the  covenant,  (2  Sam.  vi.  2.)  and 
the  converted  heathens,  (Amos  ix.  12.  Acts  xv.  17.)  are 
said  "  to  be  called  by  the  name  of  Jehovah.^^  The  expres- 
sion signifies  only,  that  they  were  his.  Thus  also,  to  be 
called  by  the  name  of  Christ  was  the  same  thing  as  to  be- 
long to  Christ,  to  be  his  disciples,  to  profess  his  religion. 
Hence  in  the  Enislle  of  James  we  find  the  phrase  employ- 
ed in  a  manner,  which  is  free  from  all  ambiguity  ;  ch.  ii.  6, 
7.  "  Do  not  rich  men  oppress  you,  and  draw  you  before 
the  judgment  seats?    Do  not  they  blaspheme  that  worthy 


247 

name,  hy  the  which  ye  are  called  .^"  Allhough,in  these  ex- 
amples, the  form  of  expression  in  the  Greek  lis  different, 
the  sense  appears  to  be  the  same  as  in  the  passages,  which 
I  am  now  endeavouring  to  illustrate.  Being  called  by  the 
name  of  Christ  signified  the  same  thing  as  professing  the 
religion  of  Christ,  and  hence  became  a  common  designa- 
tion of  the  primitive  believers. 

IV.  Mr.  Wardlaw  next  produces  two  passages  from  the 
Epistles  of  Paul,  in  which  "Jesus  is  jfcknowledged  in  con- 
nexion with  God  the  Father  as  ordering  the  events  of  pro- 
vidence." 

1  Thess.  iii.  11,  12,  13.  "Now  God  himself  and  our 
Father,  and  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  direct  ou'  way  unto 
you :  and  the  Lord  make  you  lo  increase  and  abound  in 
love  one  toward  another  and  toward  all  men,  even  as  we 
do  toward  you  ;  to  the  end  he  may  stablish  your  hearts 
unblameable  in  holiness  before  God  even  our  Father,  at  the 
coming  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  with  all  his  'saints."  (p. 
40,  119,  140.) 

2  Thess.  ii.  16,  17.  "And  now  our  Lord  Jc  us  Christ 
himself,  and  God  even  our  Father,  who  hath  loVed  us,  and 
hatb  given  us  everlasting  consolation  and  good  hope  through 
grace,  comfort  your  hearts,  and  stablish  you  in  every  good 
word  and  work."   (p.  40,  119,  120,  140.) 

In  these  passages,  Jesus  Christ  is  represented  as  cc* 
operating  with  the  Father  in  aiding,  directing,  consoling, 
and  edifying  his  disciples.  Other  scriptures  attribute  to 
him  the  same  offices.  But  it  is  clearly  stated  in  many  parts 
of  the  New-Testament,  that  our  Lord  discharges  these 
offices  in  subordination  to  the  Father,  and  by  means  of  power 
and  knowledge  communicated  from  him.  In  conformity 
wi^h  these  statements  we  ought  to  understand  the  passage* 
before  us,  which  do  not  contain  an  '^  invocation''^  either  of 
God  or  of  Jesus,   but  a  devout  wish  of  aid  and  direction 


>^48 

from  them;  and  which  guard  against  the  supposition  of 
their  equalifj^  by  giving  to  one  of  them  only  Ihat  title,  whicb 
belongs  to  the  Supreme  Deity  alone,  God  the  Father. 

Mr.  Wardlaw  is,  as  usual,  very  unfortunate  in  bis  minu- 
ter criticisms.  He  observes,  with  respect  to  the  former  of 
the  two  passages,  that  ^^the  Lord,^^  in  the  12th  verse,  is 
evidently  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Griesbach  however  has 
marked  this  word  doubtful.  If  it  be  omitted,  the  passage 
will  read  thus  ;  "  Now  God  himself  and  our  Father,  and 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  direct  our  way  unto  you,  and  make 
you  to  increase  and  abound  in  love  one  toward  another," 
&;c.  The  various  examples  of  inattention  to  the  correctness 
of  the  Greek  ient,  which  I  have  observed,  constrain  me  to 
think,  that  Mr.  Wardlaw  has  made  his  bold  assertions  (p. 
140.)  concerning  Griesbach's  emendations  without  taking 
the  trouble  to  examine  whether  they  were  true  or  false. 

With    respect  to   the    second  of    these    passages,    Mr. 
Wardlaw  endeavours  to  confirm  his  argument  by  remarking, 
that  Christ  is    "not  only  associated   with  God,  but  in  the 
order  of  address  put  before  him.'^     He  makes   the  same 
observation  upon  another  passage,   (2  Cor.  xiii.  14.  p.  19.) 
where  also  Christ  is  mentioned  in  the  order  of  the  sentence 
before  God.     This  argument   at  the   utmost  rests  on  very 
dubious  ground.     It  is  the  idiom  of  the  English  language, 
when  a  verb  has   more  than  one  nominative,   to  place  that 
first,  which  is  considered   the  highest   in  dignity  and  emi- 
nence.    In  Latin  the  rule  is  the  reverse  ;   the  most  impor- 
tant object  being  mentioned  last.     AV^hether  there  be  any 
established  practice  upon  this  subject  in  Greek,  I  must  con- 
fess myself  at  present  unable  to  say ;  but  1  do  not  take  Mr 
W^ardUiw'srule  upon  trust.     Besides,  I  <;annot  see  how  this 
observation  is  applicable  to  prove  the  Trinitarian  doctrine. 
For,  although  it  cannot  be  denied,  ihat  Christ  is  often  put 
before  God  the  Father  in  the  ajf'eclions  of  his  worshippers. 


249 

I  never  knew,  that  his  superiority  to  the  Father  was  a  doc 
trine  taught  by  systeniatlck  theolog;ians.     Perhaps  the  true 
cause,  why  the  name  of  God  follows  that  of  Christ  in  this 
benediction,   is,   that  a  considerable  train  of  words   is  con- 
nected with  it  by  the  relative  pronoun. 

V.  Mr.  Wardlaw  (p.  120.)  further  argues  for  the  Divinity 
of  Christ  from  ^^ the  forms  of  benediction,  with  which  the 
Epistles  generally  open  or  conclude,  and  which  cannot  be 
viewed  in  any  other  light  than  as  brief  prayers  for  the 
Divine  blessing  on  the  ciiurches  and  individuals  to  whom 
they  are  addressed." 

From  this  view  of  the  apostolick  benedictions  I  am  not 
disposed  to  dissent.  P/operly  speaking,  they  imply  only 
benevolent  wishes  for  happiness,  mutual  love,  and  all  tem- 
poral and  spiritual  blessings,  to  be  bestowed  by  God  and 
Jesus  upon  the  persons  addressed.  But,  as  almost  every 
wish  of  an  habitually  pious  man  includes  a  prayer,  they 
may  also  be  considered  as  aspirations  of  the  mind  To  God, 
who  is  the  object  of  prayer.  It  is  to  be  observed  however, 
(see  above,  P.  II.  ch.  4.)  that,  in  every  instance  of  such 
benedictions,  a  marked  distinction  is  made  between  '■^  God 
the  Father,'^  who  is  the  only  True  God,  and  "  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,''^  who,  according  to  the  doctrine  stated  in 
other  parts  of  Scripture,  exercises  his  functions,  as  the 
guardian  and  benefactor  of  the  Christian  church,  in  subjec- 
tion to  God  and  by  means  of  qualifications  imparted  from 
hira. 

VI.  2Cor.  xii.  8,  9.  ^^  ¥ ov  XhhiKm^  I  besought  the  Lord 
thrice,  that  it  might  depart  from  me.  And  he  said  unto 
me,  '  My  grace  is  sufficient  for  thee ;  for  my  strength  is 
made  perfect  in  weakness.'  Most  gladly  therefore  will  I 
rather  glory  in  my  infirmities,  that  the  power  ©f  Christ  may 
rest  upon  me."   (p.  40,  119,  120,  140.) 


33 


250 

Several  of  the  most  eminent  Trinitarians  both  in  ancient 
and  modern  times  have  supposed,  that  Paul  intended  by 
*'  the  Lord''  to  signify  God  the  Father.  With  due  defer- 
ence to  their  judgment,  the  mention  of  Christ  in  the  latter 
part  of  the  passage  seems  to  me  to  indicate,  that  he  was  die 
person,  whom  Paul  "besought."  If  so,  we  have  a  clear  in- 
stance of  an  earnest  supplication  for  aid,  addressed  to  Jesus. 
It  is  to  be  observed  however,  that,  when  addressed,  he 
makes  a  reply  in  distinct  terms,  say-ngto  Paul,  "  My  grace 
is  sufficient  for  thee;  for  my  strength  is  made  perfect  in 
weakness."  This  renders  it  probable,  that,  when  Paul  bC' 
sought  him,  he  was  present  with  the  Apostle  either  in  vision 
or  personally. 

Vri.  Acts  vii.  59,  60.  "  And  they  stoned  Stephen,  call-' 
ing  upon  (Jesus)  and  saying,  '  Lord  Jesus,  receive  mj 
spirit ;'  and  he  kneeled  down,  and  cried  with  a  loud  voice, 
*  Lord,  lay  not  this  sin  to  their  charge.'  "  (p.  41,  1*20— 
120,  143.) 

From  the  55th  verse  we  learn,  that  Jesus  had  shortly  be- 
fore appeared  to  this  holy  martyr  in  vision,  and  hence  it  is 
probable,  that  a  vivid  impression  remained  upon  his  mind, 
which  prompted  these  affecting  ejaculations.  In  the  only 
two  instances  therefore  of  the  invocation  of  Jesus,  which 
we  find  in  the  New  Testament,  we  have  considerable  reason 
to  believe,  that  the  petitioners  were  in  peculiar  circumstan- 
ces, which  authorized  and  excited  their  supplications.  If 
this  were  certain,  we  might  reply  without  hesitation,  that 
the  examples  of  Paul  and  Stephen  do  not  justify  prayer  to 
Christ  in  those,  to  whom  no  such  appearance  is  presented. 

The  view  of  the  nature  of  Christ,  conceived  by  Stephen 
when  he  invoked  him,  may  be  inferred  from  the  vision,  ex- 
hibired  for  his  support  and  consolation.  See  ver.  55.  He 
called  upon  Jesus,  not  as  God,  but  as  standing  at  the  right 
hand  of  God,  that  is,  appointed  and  empowered  by  God  to 


251 

direct  the  affairs  of  his  church,  and  to  guard  the  lives  and 
preserve  the  souls  of  his  servants.  The  exaraple  therefore 
of  this  djing  martyr,  even  if  it  authorize  us  to  pray  to 
Christ,  affords  no  proof  of  his  Supreme  Divinity. 

With  respect  to  the  second  ejaculalion,  "  Lord,  lay  not 
this  sin  to  their  charge,^'  it  was  probably  addressed  to  God, 
the  Judge  of  all,  to  whom  the  expiring  saint  appears  previ- 
ously and  deliberately  to  have  diverted  his  attention  in  the 
solemn  act  of  kneeling  down. 

I  confess  however,  that  I  am  not  able,  completelj^  to  my 
own  satisfaction,  to  reconcile  these  two  instances  of  the  in- 
vocation of  Jesus  with  those  numerous    and  clear    direc- 
tions,* which  represent  the  Father  as  the  only  proper  object 
of  religious  adoration.     But  I  humbly  trust,  that,  if  from  this, 
and  every  other  diflficulty,  which  occurs  to  me  in  the  study 
of  Divine  revelation,  I  learn  modesty  and  charity  ;  if  I  am 
careful  to  comply    with  those   explicit    and  often-repealed 
injunctions,   which  command  the  worship  of  the  Father 
in  spirit  and  in  truth  ;  if  I  regard  with  due  reverence  and  ad- 
miration the  character,  the  doctrines,  and  the  precepts  of 
Jesus  Christ,  and  endeavour  to   testify  my  love  to  him  by 
keeping  his  commandments  ;  though  men  may  condemn  me, 
he  will  approve:  and,  if  any  one  should  harshly  reply,  that 
I  must  dispel  my  doubts,  and  not  pretend  that  upon  such  a 
subject  the  Bible  contains  any  difficulties,  I  answer  in  the 
words  of  a  venerable  Prelate,  to  whom  the  publick  is  under 
great  obligations  both  as  a  defender  of  truth,  and  much  more 
as  an  example  of  candour  and  Christian  moderation;     "If 
different  men,  in  carefully  and  conscientiously  examining  the 
Scriptures,  should  arrive  at  different  conclusions,  even  on 
points  of  the  last  importance  ;  we  trust  that  God,  who  alone 

*  Such  as.  Jolin  xv.  16.  xvi.  23.  Rom.  i.  8,  vii.  2.').  xv.  6.  1  Cor.  xr. 
57.  Eph.  iii.  14—21.  v.  20.  Phil,  iii.3.  Col.  i.  3,  12.  ii.  17.  Heb. 
xiii.  15.     1  Peter  i.  17.  iv.  11. 


252 

knows  what  every  man  is  capable  of,  will  be  merciful  fo  liim 
thai  is  in  errour.  We  trust  that  he  will  pardon  fiie  Unitarian, 
if  he  be  in  an  errour,  because  he  has  fallen  into  it  from  the 
dread  of  becoming  an  Idolater,  of  giving  that  glory  to  another 
which  he  conceives  to  be  due  to  God  alone.  If  the  worship- 
per of  Jesus  Christ  be  in  an  errour,  we  trust  that  God  will 
pardon  his  mistake,  because  he  has  fallen  into  it  from  a  dread 
of  disobeying  what  he  conceives  to  be  revealed  concerning 
the  nature  of  the  Son,  or  commanded  concerning  tiie  honour 
to  be  given  him.  Both  are  actuated  by  the  same  principle — 
THE  FEAR  OF  GoD  ;  and,  though  that  principle  impels  them 
into  different  roads,  it  is  our  hope  and  belief,  that,  if  tliey 
add  to  their  faith  charity,  they  will  meet  in  lieaven." — Bp. 
Watson's  Theological  Tracts,  Preface,  p.  xvii,  xviii. 

VIII.  Heb.  i.  6.  "  And  let  all  the  angels  of  God  worship 
him."   (p.  12'. 

It  is  well  known,  that  the  word  translated  "  worship" 
denoted  only  that  obeisance,  which  was  ofTered  to  superiours 
as  a  mark  of  profound  respect;  and  that  the  term  "  angel" 
is  applied  to  any  being,  who  was  employed  to  communicate 
the  will  of  God  to  mankind.  The  application  of  this  pas- 
sage to  Christ  consequently  proves  nothing  more  than  his 
superiority  to  all  the  messengers  previously  sent  from  God 
for  the  instruction  of  mankind,  thus  agreeing  with  the  ob- 
ject of  the  writer  throughout  this  part  of  his  epistle. 

IX.  The  only  other  instance  of  the  worship  of  Christ 
cited  by  Mr.  W^ardlaw,  is  the  sublime  vision,  described  in 
the  5th  chapter  of  the  Revelation,  in  which  all  rational  crea- 
tures are  represented  attributing  common  honours  to  God 
and  to  Jesus. 

Even  in  this  most  splendid  description  of  the  glory  of 
Christ,  his  inferiority  to  Almighty  Gotl  is  distinctly  marked. 
It  is  not  true,  as  Mr.  Wardlaw  asserts,  (p.  125.)  that  he  "is 
represented  as  occupying   the  same  throne  with  the  Eter- 


253 

iial.**  On  the  contrary,  while  God  sits  upon  the  throne  in 
token  of  his  supremacy,  (see  ch.  iv.  2,  8 — 11.  v.  1,  7,  13.) 
ChrisI,  ihe  lamb,  stands  in  the  middle  space  between  the 
throne  and  the  elders,  and  afterwards  goes  up  to  take  the 
book  out  of  the  hand  of  him  that  sits  on  the  thione.  See 
ver.  6,  7. 

The  inferiority  of  Clirist  to  the  "  I^ord  God  Almighty, 
who  liveth  for  ever  and   ever,"  being  so  clearly  expressed 
in  tiie  vision,  the  language  of  the  worshipping  multitudes 
ought  to    be    understood    conformably  to  this    distinction. 
They  ascribe  "  blessing    and  honour  and  glory  and  power" 
both   to    God  and  to  the  Lamb;  and  to  both  tiiis  tribute 
was   unquestionably    due.      For,    as   we   learn    from  many 
other  paits  of  Scripture,    CInist    is  justly    raised  to   this 
glorious  pre-eminence,  as  a  reward  for  his  virtuous  humilia- 
tion and   obedience  unto  death,  and  as  the  qualification  by 
which  he  is  enabled  to  discharge  the   offices  of  his  exalted 
state.     The   praise  of  the  angels  and  redeemed   saints   is 
therefore  agreeable  to  the  general  doctrine  of  the   New  Tes- 
tament ;  it  is  agreeable   to  Unitarianisni ;  it  is  agreeable  to 
the  practice,  and  consonant  to  the  most  grateful  feelings  and 
fixed  sentiments  of  Unitarians.     They,   in  their  churches 
upon  earth,  are  sometimes  heard  to  join  the  adoring  throngs 
above  in  "  saying  with  a  loud  voice,  '  Worthy  is  the  lamb 
that  was  slain  to  receive  power,  and  riches,  and  wisdom,  and 
strength,  and  honour,  and  glory,  and  blessing:'  "  and  there 
is  even  some  reason  to  apprehend  that,  when   Trinitarians 
employ  the  same  language-,  they  use  it,  not  so  much  out  of 
regard  to  the   supposed  eternal  Deity  of  Christ,  as   to  the 
might  and  wisdom,  to  which  he  has  been   elevated  by   the 
Father.     See   Barrow's  Sermons,   v.  11.   No.  31.  p.  434, 
445—448. 

But,  whilst  it  is  proper,  that  we  should  give  utterance  to 
these  convictions  and  feelings  respecting  our  highly  exalted 
Redeemer,  we  are  bound  to  confine  to  Him,  that  hath  "high-' 


254 

ly  exalted  him,"  our  supreme  affection,  our  highest  adora- 
tion, and  our  most  profound  submission. 

But  it  is  argued,  tiiat,  since  God  and  Christ  in  this  in- 
stance receive  the  same  tribute  of  praise,  they  must  be 
equal  in  eternity,  in  power,  and  in  glory.  Indeed  those, 
who  maintain  the  Supreme  Divinity  of  Christ,  commonly 
represent  it  as  a  circumstance  of  great  moment,  whenever 
he  is  mentioned  in  conjunction  with  the  Father,  and  in  the 
same  or  similar  terms  with  him.  It  will  therefore  be  proper 
to  consider  more  particularly,  what  inferences  follow  from 
the  application  of  the  same  language  in  the  same  sentence  to 
Almighty  God  and  to  some  other  being.  The  following 
passages  may  serve  the  purpose.  Ex.  xiv.  31.  "And  the 
people  feared  Jehovah,  and  believed  Jehovah  and  his  ser- 
vant 3Ioses.''  I  Sam.  xii.  18.  "  And  all  the  people  great- 
ly feared  Jehovah  and  Samuel.'*  I  Chron.  xxix.  20. 
"And  all  the  congregation  blessed  Jehovah,  God  of  their 
fathers,  and  bowed  down  their  heads,  and  worshipped  Je- 
hovah and  the  King.''  2  Chron.  xxxi.  8.  "  And,  when 
Hezekiah  and  the  princes  came  and  saw  the  heaps,  they 
blessed  Jehovah  and  his  people  Israel."  Acts  xv.  28. 
"  It  seemed  good  to  the  Holy  Spirit  (that  is,  to  God)  and 
to  us."  1  Thess.  ii.  10.  "  Ye  are  witnesses  and  God." 
In  these  passages,  the  one  True  God  is  "  associated"  with 
his  creatures  as  the  object  of  faith,  fear,  worship,  and 
blessing,  and  is  mentioned  "  in  connexion"  with  them  as 
giving  counsel  and  bearing  witness.  In  all  such  cases  we 
apply  the  terms  to  God  and  to  his  creatures  "  in  different 
modifications  of  meaning  ;"  and  we  ought  to  do  so  likewise, 
when  the  Almighty  is  in  the  same  manner  conjoined  with 
his  son  Jesus  Christ.  Many  other  examples  might  be  pro- 
duced. I  shall  confine  myself  to  two.  1  Tim.  v.  21.  "  I 
charge  thee  before  God,  and  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and 
the  elect  angels,  that  thou  observe  these  things."  Let  uft 
suppose  for  a  moment,  that,  instead  of  "  the  elect  angels," 


255 

St.  Paul  had  wviUen  "  the  Holy  Spirit.*'  What  a  capital 
and  convincing  proof  of  the  Trinity  of  persons  in  the  God- 
head. "  I  charge  thee  before  God,  and  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  that  thou  observe  these  things.** 
Here,  it  would  have  been  insisted,  the  three  persons  of  the 
ever  blessed  Trinity  are  appealed  to  in  precisely  the  same 
terms,  and  called  upon  by  a  solemn  adjuration  to  witness 
the  injunction  of  the  Apostle  delivered  to  his  convert. 
1  Sam.  XXV.  32,  33.  "  And  David  said  to  Abigail,  '  Blessed 
be  Jehovah,  God  of  Israel,  who  sent  thee  this  day  to  meet 
me  ;  and  blessed  be  thy  advice  ;  and  blessed  be  thou.'  ' 
Imagine  the  words  "  Son"  and  "  Holy  Spirit"  in  the  two 
last  clauses,  instead  of  "  thy  advice"  and  "  thou." — ^^ Bless- 
ed be  Jehovah,  God  of  Israel  ;  and  blessed  be  the  Son  ; 
and  blessed  be  the  Holy  Spirit. — I  say  seriously,  that  this 
passage,  so  written,  would  have  been  a  stronger  proof  of  the 
Trinity  of  persons  in  the  Godhead  than  any  of  those,  which 
are  now  brought  forward.  I  have  no  doubt,  that  it  would 
have  been  insisted  on  with  equal  tenacity.  It  would  have 
been  maintained  in  the  most  positive  terms,  that  the 
ascription  of  blessing  and  praise,  in  exactly  the  same  lan- 
guage and  in  the  very  same  sentence,  to  these  persons,  is  a 
proof  as  clear  as  language  can  supply  of  their  equality. 
The  Trinitarians  would  have  reaped  additional  triumphs  ; 
the  Unitarians  would  have  been  obliged  to  bend  under  re- 
doubled charges  of  obstinacy  and  impiety. 

The  sense  of  the  Sacred  Writers  in  attributing  glory  and 
praise  to  the  one  True  God  and  to  Jesus  Christ  his  Son, 
Imay  be  illustrated  by  the  manner,  in  which  the  Mahomedans 
{associate  their  Prophet  with  the  Almighty.  Of  this  I 
[shall  take  a  recent  example.  A  gentleman,  who  about  30 
lyears  ago  was  at  Tripoli  and  wished  to  travel  into  the  in- 
Iteriour  of  Africa,  obtained  from  the  Bashaw  a  letter  of  in- 
troduction to  the  King  of  Fezzan.  It  commences  in  th« 
following  lofty  language  of  praise  and  supplication. 


256 

"Praise  be  unto  the  Almighty  Gorl,  and  unto  our  Lord 
bis  Prophet  Mahommed,  wliose  proleclion  and  mercy  ue 
crave,  and  resign  ourselves  to  his  liolj  will.  To  our  son, 
Sydy  Hained  Ben  Mohammed,  the  great  and  just  ruler 
over  his  beloved  people,  may  his  days  be  long  and  happy. 
Amen. 

"  Peace,  and  the  protection  and  blessing  of  God  be  with 
you  and  preserve  you  from  evil. 

*'  We  have  to  acquaint  you  our  son,  that  our  friend,  the 
English  King,  halh  sent  one  of  his  inleiprelers  unio  us,  and 
desired  we  would  procure  him  a  safe  conveyance  to  Fez- 
zan,"  &c.  &c.* 

I  introduce  this  extract,  because  the  similarity  of  opinion 
between  Mahommedans  and  Unitarians  is  sufBcient  to  illus- 
trate the  subject  before  us.     If  we  were   to   argue  after  the 
manner  of  those  Trinitarians,  who  say  that  the  New  Testa- 
ment writers  must   have    considered   Jesus  as  equal  to  the 
Father,  because  they  express   the  praises  of  them  both  in 
the  very   same  terms  and  even  in  the    same    sentence,  we 
should  conclude,  that  the  Mahommedans  hold  the  same  be- 
lief respecting   their   prophet,  since  they   in  the  very  same 
sentence   offer  not   only  praises,  but  even  prayers,  both  to 
him  and   to  Almighty  God.     We  know  however,  that  the 
Mahommedans  are  as  strenuous   as  the  Unitarians  in  main- 
taining, that  God  is  but  one  person  ;  and  they  certainly  en- 
tertain no  higher   conceptions  of  Mahonmied  than  Unitari- 
ans of  Jesus.     Their   language  proves,  that   a  person  may 
be  conceived  to  be  infinitely  inferiour  to  God  as  his  creature 
and  his  dependent,  and  yet,  in  consideration  of   the  power 
and  glory  to  which  God  has  raised  him,  he  may  be  praised 
and  even  petitioned   in  connexion   with  his  Creator  and  the 
Creator  of  all. 

*  See  Mr.  Beaiifoy's  "  Prooeedinss  of  tlie  Association  for  promoting 
the  discovery  of  the  iiiteriour  parts  of  Africa,  Loudon,  1791." 


ii 


257 


CHAPTER  IX. 

UXAMINATION     OF      THE      REMAINING      ARGUMENTS      PRODUCED     BY    MB- 
WARDLAW    TO     PROVE    THE    SUPREME      DIVINITY    OF     JESUS     CHRIST. 

That  I  may  do  full  justice  to  the  evidence  of  the  Trinita- 
rian doctrine,  and  omit  none  of  its  "prominent  and  palpable 
evidences,"  I  shall  in  this  Chapter  consider  all  the  remain- 
ing arguments  for  the  Divinity  of  Christ,  which  are  pro- 
duced by  Mr.  Wardlaw,  but  which  do  not  come  under  the 
foregoing  heads. 

John  X.  30.  "  I  and  ray  Father  are  one."   (p.  40.) 

Many  of  the  most  eminent  orthodox  criticks  both  in  an- 
cient and  modern  times  have  allowed,  that  this  passage 
affords  no  proof  of  the  proper  deity  of  Christ.  "The  an- 
cients," says  Calvin,  "  improperly  applied  this  passage  to 
prove,  that  Christ  is  of  the  same  substance  with  the  Father. 
For  Christ  does  not  argue  concerning  unity  of  substance, 
but  speaks  of  the  consent  which  he  has  with  the  Father,  so 
that  whatever  is  done  by  Christ  will  be  confirmed  by  the 
Father's  power."* 

Even  supposing  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  to  be  pre- 
viously established,  this  passage  does  not  seem  to  me  to 
admit  of  being  interpreted  with  reference  to  it.  To  express 
that  doctrine,  we  should  expect  our  Lord  to  have  said  ; 
"  I  and  my  Father  and  the  Holy  Spirit  are  one  :"  and  the 
sentence,  even  thus  completed.  Mould  not  have  been  ap- 
plicable to  the  purpose,  unless  it  had  been  further  explain- 
ed,  in  ivhat  sense  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Spirit,  are 
one. 

In  numerous  passages  of  the  New  Testament,  two  or 
more  persons  are  said  to  be  one,  that  is,  as  one,  in  order  t» 

*  Quoted  in  Belshain's  Calm  Inquiry,  p.  234. 


258 

denote  a  perfect  agreement  of  design  and  operation.  Thus, 
1  Cor.  iii.  8.  Paul  and  Apollos,  ♦'  he  that  planted  and  he 
that  watered,  were  07ie."  The  expression  signified,  that, 
although  ihev  undertook  difFerent  functions,  they  were  as 
much  united  in  the  end  and  object  of  their  labours,  as  if 
they  had  been  but  one  person.  In  Gai.  iii.  28.  the  Apostle 
says,  "  There  is  neither  Jew  nor  Greek,  there  is  neither 
bond  nor  free,  there  is  neither  male  nor  female  ;  for  ye  are 
all  one  in  Christ  Jesus.^'  The  reception  of  believers  info 
the  Christian  church  levelled  all  worldly  distinctions,  and 
produced  such  an  entire  consent  and  co-operation,  such 
a  union  of  views,  interests,  and  dispositions,  that  Jews  and 
Gentiles, freemen  and  slaves,  males  and  females,  came  to  be, 
as  it  were,  but  one  person  together  with  Jesus  Christ. 
Since  it  was,  or  ought  to  have  been,  as  impossible  for  them 
to  oppose  one  another  as  for  a  man  to  contend  against  him- 
self, they  are  said  to  have  had  but  one  body,  one  set  of 
members,  one  heart,  and  one  soul,  and  to  have  been  "  mem- 
bers of  the  body  of  Christ,  of  his  flesh  and  of  his  bones." — 
(Acts  iv.  32.  Rom.  xii.  5.  1  Cor.  xii.  13,  27.  Eph.  iv.  4. 
V.  30.) 

Upon  the  same  idea  proceeds  the  observation,  that,  when 
a  man  and  woman  are  united  in  the  marriage  connexion, 
ihei/  are  no  longer  two  persons,  but  one.  Mat.  xix.  5,  6. 
Eph.  V.  31.)  that  is,  they  have  no  longer  any  separate  ob- 
jects or  interests,  but  agree  in  their  aims,  wislies,  and  aftec- 
tions. 

These  instances  lead  to  the  true  interpretation  of  our 
Lord's  remark,  that  he  and  the  Father  were  one  person. — 
The  expression  must  be  imderstood  figuratively.  It  signi- 
fied, that  .f  esus  had  precisely  the  same  designs  and  wishes 
with  the  Falhcr,  and  that  they  co-operated  as  if  they  had 
but  a  single  mind. 

That  this  is  the  true  interpretation  of  our  Saviour's  words, 
is  placed  beyond  a  doubt  by  those  passages,  in   which   he 


259 

repeats  the  assertion,  that  he  and  the  Father  were  one, 
praying  that  all  his  disciples  might  be  one  in  the  same 
sense.  Jolm  xvii.  11.  "  Holy  Father,  keep  through  thine 
own  name  those  whom  thou  Jiast  given  me,  that  they  may 
t}e  one  as  we  are."  Ver.  20 — 23.  "  INeilher  pray  1  for 
these  alone,  but  for  them  also,  who  shall  believe  on  me 
through  their  word,  that  they  all  may  be  one,  as  thou,  Fa- 
ther, art  in  me,  and  I  in  thee,  that  they  also  may  be  one  in 
us  ;  that  the  world  may  believe,  that  thou  hast  sent  me  : 
and  the  glory,  which  thou  gavest  me,  I  have  given  them, 
that  they  may  be  one,  even  as  we  are  one,  I  in  them,  and 
thou  in  me,  that  they  may  be  made  perfect  in  one." 

If  this  be  the  only  allowable  explanation  of  (he  phrase, 
"  I  and  my  Father  are  one,""  what  has  been  said  sufficient- 
ly illustrates  anolher  passage,  produced  by  Mr.  Wardlaw, 
of  a  similar  nature.  John  xiv.  9,  10.  "  I  am  in  the  Fa- 
ther, and  the  Father  in  me  ;  and  he  that  hath  seen  me, 
hath  seen  the  Father."     (p.  40.) 

The  only  remaining  passage,  which  Mr.  Wardlaw  has 
produced,  and  almost  the  only  remaining  passage,  which 
has  commonly  been  produced  by  Trinitarians,  as  a  proof 
of  the  Deity  of  Christ,  is  Phil.  ii.  6.  "  Who,  being  in  the 
form  of  God,  thought  it  not  robbery  to  be  equal  with  God." 
(p.  43,  52,  178,  219,  253,  422,  423.) 

After  attending  carefully  to  the  ingenious  argumentation, 
by  which  Hammond  and  a  few  others  have  attempted  to 
justify  this  translation,  I  am  satisfied,  that  it  cannot  possi- 
bly be  deduced  out  of  the  original  words  of  St.  Paul.  The 
literal  translation  of  them  is,  "  Who,  being  in  the  form  of 
God,  did  not  esteem  it  a  prey  to  be  as  God."  Since  there 
is  an  evident  necessity  for  some  suppliment  in  the  last 
clause,  and  the  substantive  verb  (w*'  )  "fo  6e"  is  seldom 
used  in  the  New  Testament  to  denote  mere  existence,  we 
may  properly  insert  the  word  honoured,  and  read  "  to  be 


260 

honoured  as  God. '^  The  meaning  of  the  Aposlle  may  be 
ihus  expressed  ;  ver.  5 — 8.  "  Imitate  the  condescension 
and  benevolence  of  Jesus  Christ,  who,  although  he  resem- 
bled God  in  the  possession  of  extraordinary  power  and 
wisdom,  did  not  grasp  at  Divine  honours,  but  humbled  him- 
self to  the  performance  of  servile  offices,  and,  in  obedience 
to  the  will  of  his  Father,  submitted  unto  death,  even  the 
painful  and  ignominious  death  of  the  cross." 

The  translation,  adopted  by  the  modern  Unitarians,  is 
not  only  sanctioned  by  the  authority  of  many  of  the  ancient 
Fathers,  but  has  received  the  approbation  of  Erasmus, 
Grotius,  Le  Clerc,  Wetstein,  Archbishop  Tillotson,  Bish- 
op Bull,  Dr.  Wall,  Archbishop  Newcome,  and  many  other 
learned  men  among  the  ranks  of  Trinitarian  criticks. 

Although  I  approve  of  Mr.  Wardlaw's  translation  "  to 
be  on  an  equalitij  with  God,"  ard  admire  the  remarks,  by 
which  he  has  vindicated  it,  yei  I  know  of  no  objection  in 
his  v/ho!e  volume  more  flimsy  than  that  which  he  urges 
against  the  Unitarian  interpretation  of  this  passage.  St. 
Paul,  in  order  to  give  a  lively  representation  of  the  benevo- 
lent condescension  of  Christ,  draws  a  contrast  between  the 
conduct,  which  one  of  his  transcendent  power  and  dignity 
might  have  adopted,  (ver.  6.)  and  the  humble  conduct, 
which  Jesus  did  adopt,  (ver.  7,  8.)  Mr.  Wardlaw  takes 
one  clause  of  the  sentence,  viz.  the  6th  verse,  apart  from 
the  rest ;  and,  thus  confip.ing  the  attention  of  his  readers  to 
the  former  part  of  the  contrast,  he  asks,  "  Is  it  then  to  be 
the  peculiar  subject  of  admiration  and  astonishment, — is  it 
held  up  to  us  as  the  example,  which  of  all  examples  we  are 
most  sedulously  to  imitate,  that  a  creature,  a  man,  possess- 
ing by  Divine  communication  a  singular  portion  of  mirac- 
ulous power  and  wisdom,  did  not  pervert  these  high  endow- 
ments to  his  own  selfish  ends  ! — that  he  was  not  guilt}'  of  the 
most  heaven-daring  presumption  and  impiety  !"  &c.     Thus 


261 

he  runs  on  lo  the  bottom  of  the  page  ;  (p.  254.)  and  I  doubt 
not,  that  many  of  his  thoughtless  readers,  who  prefer  this 
idle  rant  to  the  simplicity  that  is  in  Christ,  will  acclaim  to 
his  criticisms.  But  to  perceive  their  extreme  futility,  it  is 
only  necessary  to  read  the  sentence  throughout,  so  as  to 
bring  into  notice  the  contrast,  which  it  describes  with  beau- 
tiful and  simple  eloquence.  It  must  be  remembered  also, 
that  Mr.  Wardlaw's  charge  of  "  unnatural  and  vapid  tame- 
ness"  fixes  itself  upon  the  inspired  Apostle,  and  not  upon 
those  who  give  the  exact  translation  and  only  adniissible 
exposition  of  his  words. 

Besides  producing  passages,  which  he  supposes  to  affirm 
the  Divinity  of  Christ  in  direct  terms,  Mr.  Wardlaw  argues 
from  certain  general  views,  wliich,  if  Christ  be  considered 
as  a  mere  creature,  however  highly  exalted,  "are  bereft  of 
all  their  force  and  propriety,  and  appear  altogether  unnat- 
ural and  unaccountable."  p.  45 — 55,  133.  These  consid- 
erations are,  the  views  displayed  in  the  New  Testament  of 
the  love  of  God  in  the  mission  of  Jesus  Christ;  the  ac- 
counts of  the  condescension  and  love  of  Christ  in  executing 
his  mediatorial  office  ;  the  warm  transport  and  gratitude  of 
the  Sacred  Writers  in  contemplating  these  subjects  ;  the 
exaltation  of  Jesus  to  the  right  hand  of  God  ;  and  his  high 
claims  to  the  love  and  obedience  of  his  followers.  Mr. 
Wardlaw  maintains,  that,  except  upon  the  supposition  of 
Christ's  proper  Deity,  the  language  of  the  Scriptures  upon 
these  subjects  *'  violates  every  sentiment  of  propriety,  and 
is  the  mere  rhapsody  of  admiration,  the  unmeaning  bom- 
bast of  eulogy." 

Although  such  arguments  as  these,  in  the  way  in  which 
Mr.  Wardlaw  has  illustrated  them,  afford  a  fine  field  for 
eloquent  declamation,  and  are  well  adapted  to  excite  the 
wonder,  applause,  and  sympathy  of  a  listening  crowd,  they 
are  altogether  out  of  place  in  a  work  of  Scriptural  invesfi- 


262 

gation.  The  evidences,  by  which  the  principal  doctrines 
of  Christianity  are  supported,  may  certainly  be  perceived 
by  the  understanding  without  the  excitements  of  fancy  and 
feeling.  So  little  occasion  is  there  to  rouse  them  into  action, 
that  the  danger  is,  lest  our  passions  should  hurry  away  our 
judgments,  lest  those  prejudices,  which  we  have  been  ac- 
cuslomed  to  connect  with  the  exercise  of  our  devotional 
affections,  and  which  are  magnified  in  our  conceptions  far 
beyond  their  real  importance,  should  render  our  minds  cal- 
lous to  the  impression  even  of  the  most  clear,  decisive,  and 
abundant  evidence.  It  ought  therefore  to  be  our  serious 
endeavour,  instead  of  indulging,  to  check  the  sallies  of 
passion  and  fancy,  and  to  form  a  cool,  accurate,  and  impar- 
tial judgment  of  the  true  state  of  each  disputed  opinion. 
Before  discussing  subjects  of  such  vast  extent  and  trans- 
cendent importance,  we  ought  to  calm  our  perturbed  spirits 
in  some  such  language  as  the  following  ; 

«'  Imagination's  airy  wing  repress  ; 

•'  Lock  lip  tby  senses ;  let  no  passion  stir ; 

*'  Wake  all  to  reason  ;  let  her  reign  alone ; 

"  Then,  in  thy  soul's  deep  silence,  and  the  depth 

"  Of  Nature's  silence,  midnight,  thus  inquire." 

Mr.  Wardlaw's  impressive  declamation,  instead  of  con- 
ducing in  the  least  degree  to  the  discovery  of  truth,  can 
only  serve  to  fortify  the  mind  in  its  attachment  to  its  pre- 
conceived opinions,  whether  they  be  true  or  false  ;  and,  if 
upon  careful  revision  it  should  prove,  that  they  are  false, 
then  how  exceedingly  indiscreet  and  indecorous  are  his 
assertions,  that,  except  his  interpretations  of  Scripture  be 
admitted,  Jesus  Christ  himself  employed  "  the  language  of 
unexampled  presumption,  and  outraged  every  feeling  of 
fitness  and  propriety." 

Although  it  might  be  sufficient  to  enter  my  decided  pro- 
test against  this  method  of  arguing,  and  to  observe,  that,  if 


263 

the  Deity  of  Christ  be  not  taught  in  explicit  terms,  mere 
general  considerations  can  be  of  no  avail  to  prove  il,  yet 
I  shall  add  a  few  other  remarks  in  reply  to  this  part  of  Mr. 
Wardlaw's  publication. 

The  very  passages,  which  Mr.  Wardlaw  has  produced 
as  containing  sentiments  capable  of  being  justified  only  on 
the  supposition  of  our  Lord's  proper  Deity,  suggest  other 
grounds  for  those  representations  which  they  exhibit.  The 
love  of  God  is  stated  to  appear,  not  in  sending  one  of  the 
Persons  of  the  Trinity  to  be  united  to  a  suffering  mortal, 
but  in  "  not  sparing  his  own  Son ;"  (the  most  eminently 
favoured  and  distinguished  of  his  creatures,  Rom.  viii.  32.) 
in  "  giving  him  for  us,  that  whosoever  believeth  in  him  might 
not  perish,  but  have  everlasting  life  ;^*  (John  iii.  16.)  in 
giving  him  for  us,  *'  while  we  were  yet  sinners,^*  (Rom.  T. 
8.)  in  loving  us  before  we  loved  him,  and  in  sending  his  Son 
to  be  the  propitiation  for  our  sins.^^  (1  John  iv.  9,  10.) 
According  to  the  Scriptural  account,  the  love  of  God  in 
the  mission  of  Christ  was  manifested  rather  in  the  merciful 
and  beneficent  ends  to  be  accomplished  by  sending  him, 
than  in  the  original  dignity  of  the  person  sent. 

But  Mr.  Wardlaw  asks.  If  the  doctrine  of  Unitarians 
upon  the  person  of  Christ  be  true,  why  do  the  Scriptures 
speak  of  his  mission  in  language  so  much  more  elevated 
than  that  which  is  applied  to  other  Divine  messengers? — 
Because  the  messages  of  Jesus  were  infinitely  more  im- 
portant, more  consoling,  and  more  encouraging,  than  those 
of  any  other  prophet,  and  because  he  far  surpassed  all 
others  in  the  holiness  of  his  life,  the  greatness  of  his 
endowments,  and  the  spotless  purity,  the  majestick  dignity, 
and  the  all-amiable  excellency  of  his  character. — "But  why 
do  we  not  find  similar  language  applied  to  Peter  or  Paul, 
although  they  also  proved  their  sincerity,  and  sealed  their 
testimony,  with  their  blood  ?" — Because  they  were  not  only 


264 

much  inferiour  to  Jesus  in  all  the  above-mentioned  qualifi- 
cations, but  acted  as  his  servants  and  instruments,  deriving 
from  him  those  fuller   and   clearer   representations  of   his 
doctrine,  which  they  diffused  through   the  world  after  his 
ascension.     Besides,  it  is  needless  to  inquire,  why  the  New 
Testament  does  not  resound  the  praises  of  the  authors,  by 
whom  it  was  composed.     Modesty  and  propriety  forbade 
it.     But,  after  they  had  both  lived  and  died,  as  their  bless- 
ed master  did,  for  the  good  of  mankind,  then,  to  borrow  the 
words  of  a  learned  author,    "  to  the  honour  of  these  excel- 
lent poor  men  conspicuous  monuments  were  erected  every 
where  ;  anniversary  memorials  of  their  names  and  virtues 
were  celebrated  ;  they  were  never  mentioned  or  thought  of 
without  respect ;    their  commendations  were  interwoven 
with  the  praises  of  their  great  Lord  and  Maker,  whom 
they  honoured.''   (Barrow's   Sermons,  v.  I.  p.  55.)     The 
simple  solemn  rites,  by  which  the  primitive  Christians  tes- 
tified their  regard  to  the  memory  of  those,  who  died  in  sup- 
port of  their  religion,  cannot   be  better   described  than  in 
the  following  words  of  the  learned   Dr.  Cave :    "  In  those 
sad  and  bloody  times,  when  the  Christian  religion  triumphed 
over  persecution,  and  gained   upon  the  world   by  nothing 
more  than  the  constant  and  resolute  sufferings  of  its  pro- 
fessors, whom  no  threatenings  or  torments  could  baffle  out 
of  it ;    the  people  generally  had  a  vast  reverence  for  those 
who  suffered  thus  deeply  in  the  cause  of  Christianity,  and 
laid  down   their   lives  for  the  confirmation  of  it.     They 
looked  upon  confessors  and  martyrs,  as  the  great  champions 
of  their  religion,  who  resisted  unto  blood,  and  died  upon 
the  spot  to  make  good  its  ground,  and  to  maintain  its  hon- 
our and  reputation  ;   and  therefore  thought  it  very  reasona- 
ble to  do  all  possible  honour  to  their  memories,  partly  that 
others  might  be  encouraged  to  the  like  patience  and  fortitude, 
and  partly  that  virtue  even  in  this  world  might  not  lose  its 


265 

reward.     Hence  they  were  wont  once  a-year  to  meet  at  the 
graves  of  martyrs,  there  solemnly  to  recite  their  siifTerings 
and  their  triumphs,  to  praise  their  virtues,  and  to  bless  God 
for  their  pious  examples,  for   their  holy  lives,  and   their 
liappy  deaths,  for  their  palms  and  crowns."   (Cave's  Prim- 
itive  Christianity,  p.    126.)     None  but   the   hard-hearted 
scorner,  casting  his  eye  upon  this  beautiful  picture,  would 
cavil  against  these  offerings  of    gratitude,  veneration,  and 
piety,  as  "  utterly  extravagant  and  unaccountable  :"    and, 
if  they  were  justly  due  to  the  merits  and  services  of  the 
martyrs  to  the  Christian  religion,  a  higher  tribute  was  owing 
to  its  author,  even  though  in  his  original  nature  he  was  but 
a  mortal  man.* 

Mr.  Wardlaw  has  produced  but  one  more  argument  for 
the  Deity  of  Christ.  He  affirms,  (p.  174,  420.)  that  the 
accounts  of  the  miraculous  conception  of  our  Lord  in  the 
introductory  chapters  of  Matthew  and  Luke's  Gospels, 
"cannot  be  made  to  comport  with  the  Unitarian  creed." 
He  has  not  however  advanced  any  argument  in  support  of 
this  assertion ;  nor  was  it  possible  for  him  to  prove,  that 
the  generation  in  a  supernatural  manner  of  a  being,  which, 
when  born,  should  not  be  the  Supreme  God,  exceeds  the 
efforts  of  Omnipotence. 

With  this  unsupported  assertion  he  has  connected  several 
remarks,  which  it  is  necessary  for  me  to  notice  in  order  to 
counteract  their  false  tendency.  I  shall  however  only  con- 
front his  assertions  with  an  exact  statement  of  fadsy  ab- 
staining from  reflections. 

Sone  time  in  the  course  of  the  last  year  (1813)  the  Reli- 
gious Tract  Society  of  Glasgow  published  a  small  pampj.let, 
having  the  following  title,  "  An  Exposure  of  the  Unwar- 

*  [This  reasoning  is  strengthened  in  the  opinion  of  those  Unitarians 
who  hold  the  pre-existent  dignity  of  Christ. — Editor.] 

35 


266 

ranfable  Liberties  taken  by  the  Unitarians  with  the  Sacred 
Scriptures,  in  their  Version  of  the  New  Testament; 
with  some  critical  reoiarivs  on  their  interpretation  of  parti- 
cular passages  of  Scripture;  extracted  (with  the  author's 
permission)  from  Dr.  Magee's  work  on  Atoneaient  and 
Sacrifice." 

There  was  nothing  either  in  the  substance  of  these  Extracts 
or  their  spirit,  which  deserved  a  reply.  They  are  stamped 
with  falsehood  in  their  very  Title,  representing  the  "  Im- 
proved Version  of  the  New  Testament"  as  the  version  of 
the  Unitarians,  although  it  is  the  production  of  individual 
Unitarians  only,  and,  far  from  having  received  the  general 
approbation  of  the  Unitarian  body,  or  being  considered  by 
them  as  a  proper  substitute  in  puWick  tvorship  or  domes- 
tick  reading  for  the  common  translation,  has  been  almost 
as  severely  criticised  by  some  of  them  as  by  its  orthodox 
revilers. 

The  subject,  to  which  these  Extracts  principally  relate, 
is  the  genuineness  of  the  introductory  chapters  of3Iatthew 
and  Luke's  Gospels.  In  the  Sermon  preached  at  the  open- 
ing of  the  L^nitarian  Chapel  in  this  city,  which  was  published 
for  the  express  purpose  of  preventing  misrepresentation,  by 
giving  a  plain  account  of  the  opinions  held  by  Unitarians 
and  the  grounds  of  their  dis&ent,  and  which  has  been  gener- 
ally allowed  to  have  answered  its  object  by  being  clear  and 
accurate  upon  these  points,  it  was  stated  that  the  genuine- 
ness of  these  chapters  is  a  subject,  upon  whicii  Unitarians 
are  divided  in  opinion.  Yet  Mr.  Wardlaw  in  the  Discourse, 
in  which  he  quoies  that  Sermon  for  the  purpose  of  object- 
ing to  it,  and  the  Religious  Tract  Society  in  their  Extracts 
from  Dr.  Magee,  represent  the  spurioiisness  of  these 
chanters  as  a  general  principle  of  the  Unitarian  creed. 
The  "unwarrantable  liberties,"  complained  of,  were  how- 
ever at  the  utmost  chargeable  only  upon  a  certain  portion  of 


267 

the  Unitarians,  vis.  those,  who  denj  the  miraculous  con- 
ception of  Christ,  or  who  were  concerned  in  the  pubUcation 
of  tiie  "  Improved  Version." 

As  Mr.  Belsham  was  the  author  principally  attacked  in 
this  "  Exposure,"  it  was  thought  proper,  that  he  should  be 
requested  to  write  a  reply.  With  great  kindness  and 
promptitude  he  assented,  and  the  Glasgow  Unitarian  Fund 
published  "  An  address  to  the  Inquirers  after  Christian 
truth,  in  reply  to  the  Extracts  from  Dr.  Magee's  book  on 
Atonement  and  Sacrifice," — a  work,  which  appeared  to  me 
as  much  superiour  to  the  other  in  temper  as  in  style  and 
argument. 

The  editors  of  Ihe  "  Improved  Version"  have  expressed 
strong  doubts,  whether  the  account  of  the  conception,  birth, 
and  childhood  of  Christ  (Mat.  i.  17 — ii.)  be  a  genuine  por- 
tion of  St.  Matthew's  Gospel.  Among  other  arguments 
they  bring  forward  this  consideration,  that  the  whole  pas- 
sage was  wanting  in  the  copies  used  by  the  Ebioniles,  or 
ancient  Hebrew  Christians.  Dr.  Magee  replies,  that  the 
Ebionites  also  rejected  the  three  last  Gospels  and  the 
Epistles  of  Paul,  and  that,  if  the  editors  of  the  "Improved 
Version"  attribute  any  weight  to  their  evidenee  concerning 
the  passage  in  question,  they  "ought  to  receive  their  testi- 
mony throughout,"  and  reject  "  all  the  New  Testament 
except  St.  Matthew."  Mr.  Belsham  answers,  (Address, 
p.  8,  9.)  that  it  may  be  perfectly  proper  to  pay  regard  to 
the  testimony  of  the  Ebionites,  when  it  concurs  with  other 
facts  and  probabilities,  although  their  evidence  ought  to  be 
decidedly  rejected,  when  it  is  disproved  by  clear  and  cer- 
tain considerations  of  an  opposite  tendency  ;  just  as  we 
assent  without  hesitation  to  Livy's  account  of  the  battle  of 
Cannce,  which  is  confirmed  by  other  historians,  although 
we  utterly  disbelieve  the  assertion  of  the  same  author  that 
an  ox  spoke,  because  this  story  is  unsupported  by  any  con-^ 


268 

curriiig  evidence.  Thus  Mr.  Belsham  argues  from  a  com- 
parison of  the  testimony  of  Livy  with  the  testimony  of  the 
Ebionites.  Mr.  WarcUaw  (Note  K-)  represents  him  as 
comparing  Livy  with  St.  Matthew.  Although  Mr.  Bel- 
sham's  tract  contains  no  such  words  and  no  such  sentiment, 
Mr.  Wardlaw  introduces  the  following  passage,  among  others 
correctly  cited,  in  the  form  of  a  quotation  from  that  pam- 
phlet ;  "The  Evangelist  Matlhew  relates,  that  Jesus  of 
Nazareth  died  on  a  cross  ;  and  I  believe  him.  The  same 
Evangelist  Matlhew  relates,  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was 
bo.n  of  a  virgin  ;  but  I  believe  him  not."  This  account  of  the 
argument  is  accompanied  with  charges  against  Mr.  Belsham 
of  "  bitterness  and  violence,"  "the  most  evasive  sophistry," 
"obvious  and  flagrant  inconsistency,"  "  slyly  shifting  his 
ground,"  "  levity  and  impiety,"  "parade,"  and  "unwar- 
rantable presumption."  Upon  such  grounds  and  in  such 
language  has  Mr.  Wardlaw  undertaken  to  censure  a  man,  who 
is  greatly  his  superiour  in  years,  in  talents,  in  learning,  and 
in  celebrity  ;  who,  in  his  lucid  and  vigorous  wrilings,  though 
he  appears  admirably  qualified  to  repress  blustering  bigotry 
and  presuming  ignorance,  always  respects  sincerity  of  in- 
tention and  a  good  moral  character  ;  and  who  is  in  the 
highest  degree  estimable  for  the  urbanity  of  his  manners, 
the  integrity  of  his  principles,  and  the  candour  and  beuevo- 
lefnce  of  his  heart- 


269 


CHAPTER  X. 

EXAMINATION    OF   THE    EVIDENCE    PRODUCED    TO    PROVE     THE     DISTINCT 
PERSONALITY    AND    DIVINITY    OF    THE    HOLY    SPIRIT. 

The  doctrine  concerning  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  maintaining 
which  orthodox  Christians  differ  from  Unitarians,  is  this  ; 
that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  a  Divine  Person,  distinct  from 
the  Father.  In  order  therefore  to  establish  the  Trinitarian 
doctrine,  it  was  necessary  for  Mr.  Wardlaw  to  produce 
proofs,  not  only  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  a  person,  and  that 
he  is  possessed  of  Divine  attributes,  bnt  also  that  he  is  a 
different  being  from  God  the  Father.  Nearly  ail  the  pas- 
sages however,  which  he  has  brought  forward,  go  no  further 
at  the  very  utmost  than  to  show,  first,  that  personal,  and 
secondly,  that  Divine  properties  are  attributed  in  Scripture 
to  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  other  circumstance,  which  is  the 
only  matter  in  dispute,  he  has  almost  omitted  to  notice. 
In  addition  to  those  passages,  which  were  alleged  as  testi- 
monies to  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  in  general,  he  has 
only  produced  the  following  in  proof  of  the  distinct  person- 
ality and  Divinity  of  the  Spirit. 

1.  1  Cor.  vi.  19.  "What  !  know  ye  not,  that  your  body 
is  the  temple  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  is  in  you,  which  ye 
have  of  God?"  (p.  284,  285.)  The  Holy  Spirit  is  here 
evidently  represented  as  distinct  from  God.  That  it  is 
also  God  himself,  is  argued  by  Mr.  Wardlaw  froin  a  com- 
parison of  this  passage  with  others,  in  which  the  same  per- 
sons are  said  to  be,  not  as  here,  "the  temple  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,"  but  "  the  temple  of  God.''  1  Cor.  iii.  16.  2  Cor. 
Ti.  16. 

Although  this  argument  has  much  more  of  the  sem- 
blance of  truth  than  the  generality  of  those  adduced  by 


276 

Mr.  Wardlaw,  it  is  totally  insufficient  to  establish  a  doc-  j 
trine  requisite  to  the  salvation  of  mankind.  That  "  the  holy 
spirit"  here  signifies  the  dispositions  and  habits  produced 
by  the  supernatural  influence  of  God,  appears  evident,  be- 
cause Christians  are  said  to  "  have  it  from  God.""  Irt 
various  passages,  which  I  formerly  cited,  (P.  II.  ch.  8.  §  2, 
5.)  these  dispositions  are  represented  as  dwellivg  or  resi- 
ding in  the  minds  of  Christians.  By  carrying  the  meta- 
phor a  little  further,  Christians  are  designated  tbe  temple  oi 
that  holy  influence,  the  pure  and  sacred  abode  of  those 
heavenly  dispositions.  By  a  different  view  of  the  subject, 
they  are  also  conceived  to  be  so  nearly  allied  and  assimila- 
ted to  the  Divine  Beiug,  that  God  himself,  as  it  were,  enters 
into  their  very  substance,  and  resides  in  them  as  if  they 
"were  the  temple  of  his  peculiar  presence.  Hence  St.  Paul, 
in  another  part  of  his  writings,  (Eph.  ii.  22.)  says,  that 
Christians  "  are  builded  together  for  a  habitation  of  God 
throngh  the  Spirit  ;^*  which  signities,  that  holy  and  bene- 
volent dispositions,  continually  cherished  in  (heir  breasts, 
make  them  a  fit  residence  for  God  himsolf. 

2.  1  Cor.  ii.  9,  10.  "  Eye  hath  not  aeeii,  nor  ear  heard, 
neither  have  entered  into  the  heart  of  man,  the  things  which 
God  hath  prepared  for  them  that  love  him;  but  God  hath 
revealed  them  unto  us  by  his  spirit:^'  (f"^  Toy  mtuf^xroi outou.'j 
(p.  285.) 

The  last  clause  implies,  that  "  the  spirit  of  God^*  is 
something  distinct  from  the  Father.  That  it  here  signifies 
his  inspiration,  is  equally  manifest,  because  it  is  represent- 
ed as  the  means,  by  which  He  cotnmunicatcs  knowledge  to 
His  creatures,  and  reveals  to  them  the  secrets  of  His  will. 
In  the  next  verse  however,  (ver.  11.)  "  the  spirit  of  God" 
evidently  means  God  himself,  the  Apostle  here,  as  in  other 
places,  using  the  same  j)hrase  in  two  ditferent  senses.  In 
the  12lh  verse,  he  again  employs  the    term  according  to   its 


271 

ordinary  accepfation  ;  "  Now  have  we  received,  not  the 
spirit  of  the  World,  but  the  spirit  which  is  of  God,'* 
(jo  mtvfAst  TO  (K  Tcu  eioy,)  that  is.  We  are  guided  by  those  dispo- 
sitions and  influences,  which  are  supernaturallj  vouchsafed 
to  us  by  God,  and  not  by  those,  which  are  prevalent  among 
the  great  mass  of  mankind. 

8.  Mr.  VV^ardlaw  further  asserts,  that  the  Divine  power 
and  sovereignty  of  the  Spirit  are  declared  in  those  passages, 
where  Jesus  speaks  of  himself  as  casting  out  demons  by  the 
Spirit  of  God,  (Mat.  xii.  28.)  where  he  is  said  to  have  been 
"  quickened  by  the  Spirit,''  (I  Peleriii.  18— -JO.)  and  where 
God  is  said  to  "  quicken  the  mortal  bodies  of  Christians  by 
his  spirit  which  dwelleth  in  them.  (Rom.  viii.  11.)  These 
passages  are  thus  far  applicable  to  Mr.  Wardlaw's  purpose, 
that  in  them  "  the  spirit"  signifies  something  distinct  from 
the  Father  ;  but  that  it  cannot  mean  the  third  of  Ihe  suppo- 
sed persons  in  the  Godhead  is  evident,  because  it  is  spoken 
o(  diS  the  instrument,  by  means  of  which  certain  effects 
were  produced.  In  these  passages  it  can  only  denote  that 
energetick  influence  of  God,  through  which  Christ  healed 
demoniacks,  and  was  himself  raised  from  the  dead,  through 
which  also  his  disciples  are  raised  from  the  death  of  sin  to 
the  life  of  virtue.  The  Trinitarian  exposition  of  these  pas- 
sages leads  to  the  greatest  incongruities.  It  represents  the 
second  Person  of  the  Trinity  performing  miracles  and  re- 
stored to  life,  not  by  his  own  omnipotence,  but  (hrough  the 
instrumentality  of  the  third  Person,  to  whom  he  is  equal  in 
power  and  glory,  and  whose  co-operation  he  could  not  re- 
quire. 

4.  The  only  other  passage,  in  which  the  Spirit  is  men- 
tioned as  distinct  from  God,  and  which  Mr.  W^ardlaw  con- 
ceives to  be  a  proof,  not  only  of  his  distitictjiess  from  the 
Father,  but  of  his  equality  with  him,  is  Heb.  ix.  14.  (p.  289.) 
"  How  much  more  shall  the  blood  of  Christ,  who  through 


272 

the  dernul  Spirit  offered  himself  without  spot  to  God,  purge 
jour  conscience  from  dead  works  to  serve  the  living  Goti  ?" 
The  expression  "  through  the  eternal  Spirif"  ('^'*  TrnvfAXTc; 
*4u,nou^  denotes  that  the  spirit  served  as  an  instrument,  by 
which  Christ  was  enabled  to  offer  himself  without  spot  to 
God.  Here  therefore  it  signifies  something  not  only  distinct 
from  God,  but  inferiour  to  him.  Why  then  is  it  called 
''eternal.''^'  This,  1  confess,  is  a  difficulty;  for,  as  the 
passage  now  stands,  it  can  no  more  be  reconciled  to  the  Uni- 
tarian doctrine,  than  to  the  opinion  of  the  orthodox.  I  am 
inclined  with  the  Editors  of  the  Improved  Version  to  sus- 
pect, that  ctimtcv,  Eternal,  is  not  the  genuine  reading.  For, 
in  the  tirst  place,  since  Griesbach  has  been  so  exceedingly 
cautious  in  his  emendations  as  to  make  no  change  in  the  re- 
ceived text  except  when  the  evidence  was  three  or  four- 
fold in  his  favour,  it  may  be  proper  after  due  inquiry  and 
upon  established  principles  to  make  further  alterations  than 
he  has  ventured  upon,  although,  so  far  as  he  has  gone,  he 
must  be  implicitly  followed  in  his  corrections  :  secondly,  it 
appears  from  Griesbach's  note,  that  there  is  very  copious 
evidence  for  the  rejection  of  this  word  as  well  as  for  retain- 
ing it ;  thirdly,  the  adjective  was  perhaps  originally  written 
in  the  contracted  iovm,  di-^,  which  would  facilitate  the  change 
o{(t.ym  into  "-ioinou.  \  bring  forward  these  remarks  principallv 
with  the  view  of  vindicating  the  editors  of  the  Improved 
Version  from  Mr.  Wardlaw's  angry  reprehensions.  For, 
even  if  the  conjmon  reading  were  indisputably  correct,  the 
passage  would  afford  no  proof  of  the  Divinity  o(  ihe  Holy 
Spirit,  wiio,  if  he  be  the  Supreme  God,  could  not  have  been 
employed  as  the  inslrmnenl,  by  whose  aid  Christ  was  en- 
abled to  undergo  the  pains  of  death. 

M  .  ^-^  ar  'law  (p.  28  5—286)  agrees  with  Unitarians,  that 
"  the  h  >'<y  spirW^  someti  nes  denotes  the  various  influences 


273 

©f  God  upon  the  minds  of  men.  But  he  intimates,  that  the  ex- 
amples of  its  occurrence  in  this  sense  are  very  rare,  and 
(hat  "  the  ordinary  current  phraseology  of  the  Scriptures  is 
framed  on  the  supposition  of  the  Spirit's  personality."  He 
certainly  ou2;ht  not  to  have  advanced  such  an  assertion 
without  examininfif  all  the  passages  of  the  New  Testament, 
in  which  the  phrase  is  found,  so  as  to  be  able  to  judge 
whether  his  representation  is  true.  This  I  have  done  ; 
and  the  result,  which  I  have  given  in  the  8th  Chapter  of 
the  ^d  Part,  is  directly  the  reverse  of  Mr.  Wurdlaw's 
statement.  The  phrases  "  holy  spirit"  and  "  spirit  of  God" 
tire  commonly  employed  to  denote  influences,  seldom  to 
describe  a  person  ;  and,  where  those  influences  are  per- 
sonified, we  can  trace  the  atTections  and  sentiments,  which 
introduce  and  justify  the  use  of  this  figure  of  speech. 

It  is  a  consideration  of  no  small  weight  against  the  Trin- 
itarian doctrine,  that  the  Bible  contains  no  ascription  of 
praise  or  glory  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  would  scarcely 
have  been  the  case,  had  the  Spirit  been  entitled  to  such 
honours  equally  with  God  the  Father.  In  consequence 
of  this  deficiency,  Mr.  Wardlaw,  though  he  concludes 
some  of  his  preceding  discourses  relating  to  the  nature  and 
office  of  Christ  with  suitable  doxologies  from  the  Scriptures, 
is  here  obliged  to  borrow  that  from  the  Common  Prayer  of 
the  Church  of  England  ;  "  Glory  be  to  the  Father,  and  to  the 
Son,  and  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  it  was  in  the  beginning, 
is  now,  and  ever  shall  be."* 

*  The  statement  of  the  evidence  for  the  Unitarian  doctrine,  contain, 
ed  in  this  volume,  may  serve  as  a  reply  to  a  Sermon,  published  in  an- 
swer to  mine  by  the  Rev.  A.  Symington  of  Paisley  ;  which  I  thus  men- 
tion, because  it  appears  to  me  to  be  written  with  sincere  piety,  and 
with  no  reflections  against  me  or  other  Unitarians  but  such  as  I  easily 
excuse.  Alth.  ngh  this  writer,  equally  with  Mr.  Wardlaw,  so  far  as  I 
can  judge  from  his  Sermon,  possesses  many  qualifications  for  great  re- 
spectability and  usefulness  in  the  Christian  ministry,  he  does  not  seem 
to  have  the  means,  or  the  habit,  of  applying  to  those  sources  of  infwr- 

36 


*i74 

Mr.  Wardlaw  (p.  294.)  closes  his  observations  in  proof 
of   the    Trinitarian  doctrine  with   the   following    remarks  ; 
*'  While  J  am  thus  firmlj  convinced,  that  the   Scriptures 
are  incapable  of  any  fair  and  consistent  explanation  without 
the  admission  of  the    doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  I  entertain 
strong  doubts  about  the  correctness  of  the  notion,  common- 
ly received,  of  what  is  called  the   elernai  procession  of  the 
Son  from  the  Father,  and  of  the  Spirit  from  the  Father 
and  the  Son,  in  the  essence  of  Deity. ^^     This  candid  avow- 
al affords  a  gratifying   illusJralion  of  the   progress  of  good 
sense    and    liberality  of  sentiment  in  matters  of  religion. 
Five  hundred  years  ago,  a  man  would  have  been  imprison- 
ed and  perhaps  impaled,  not  for   denying,  but   even  for  as- 
serting the  eternal  procession  of  the  Son.     For  the  ortho- 
dox doctrine  is,  that  the  Son  is  not  proceeding,  but  begot- 
ten.   (See  the  Nicene  and  Athanasian  Creedis.)    Mr.  Ward- 
law  however,  does  not    condescend  to  notice  a  distinction, 
which  formerlv  exercised  the  acumen  of  jjrave  councils  and 
sovereign  pontiffs  ;  and  he   not  only  pours  contempt  upon 
the  whole  question  between  the  procession  and  generation 
of  (he   Son,  but  he  even  expresses  strong  doubts  upon  the 
general  doctrine  of  the  derivation  of  the  Son  from  the   Fa- 
ther and  of  the  Holy  Spirit  from  the  Father  and  the  Son. 
If  he  had  published  such  sentiments  at  any  period  between 
the  fifth  century  and  the  Reformation,  I  have  no  doubt  he 

niation,  by  wliich  alone  it  is  possible  to  determine  tbe  import  of  dis- 
puted passages  of  Scripture.  I  humbly  conceive,  that  31inisters,  so 
situated,  while  they  follow  their  own  judgment  in  the  zealous  and  faith- 
ful use  of  the  other  talents,  equally  important  and  raluable,  with  which 
they  are  favoured  by  Providence,  ought  to  leave  (he  eniendatiou  of  the 
Greek  text,  the  translation  of  it  into  English,  and  evtn,  to  a  certain 
degree,  the  interpretation  of  it,  when  translated,  to  those  persons, 
either  among  Unitarians  or  the  Orthodox,  who  by  the  requisite  laljour 
and  study  have  become  intimately  acquainted  with  the  original  lan- 
guages of  Scripture,  and  who  are  versed  in  the  impartial  application  of 
the  sound  and  eslabliKhed  principles  of  Biblical  Criticikiii. 


275 

would  have  been  tortured  without  mercj.  Thanks  then  to 
Luther  and  Calvin  and  Socinus,  and  the  rest  of  the  noble  and 
independent  minds,  who  first  asserted  the  rights  of  private 
judgment,  taught  men  to  use  their  understandings  with 
some  degree  of  vigour  and  freedom,  and  gradually  drew  off 
their  attention  from  those  unmeaning  sounds  and  frivolous 
disputes,  which  had  been  magnified  by  ecclesiasticks  for 
their  secular  advantage.  Let  us,  as  we  profit  by  the  la- 
bours and  the  sufferings  of  these  magnaniuious  innovators, 
imitate  their  great  examples.  By  pursuing  the  path,  in 
which  they  trod,  we  shall  find  that  the  religion  of  Jesus  is 
not  only  as  much,  but  even  more  rational,  more  plain,  and 
more  useful,  than  it  appeared  to  most  of  them. 

Mr.  Wardlaw's  confession  also  illustrates  the  great  advan- 
tage of  having  the  mind  free  from  the  shackles  of  subscrip- 
tion to  human  articles.  The  Churches  of  Rome,  England, 
and  Scotland,  still  insist  with  peremptory  minuteness  upon 
the  belief  that  the  Son  is  begotten  not  proceeding,  and  the 
Holy  Spirit  proceeding  not  begotten,  and  admit  no  one  into 
their  communion,  who  does  not  give  his  assent  to  the  truth 
of  these  distinctions.  But,  while  the  clergy  of  these  self- 
manacled  communities  continue  to  court  the  veneration  of 
the  vulgar  by  the  profession  of  pristine  nonsense,  Mr. 
Wardlaw  has  boldly  loosened  the  yoke  from  ofThis  neck  ; 
and  it  is  to  be  hoped,  that  having  proceeded  thus  far,  and 
wishing  to  conform  his  belief  not  to  popular  opinions  or  to 
human  creeds,  but  to  the  only  infallible  test,  the  word  of 
God,  he  will  pursue  his  course  of  manly  and  independent, 
but  humble  and  cautious  inquiry,  and  at  some  future  period 
employ  his  strong  powers  of  reasoning  and  persuasion  in 
enforcing  those  great  and  simple  truths  of  the  Christian  re- 
ligion, which  are  agreeable  to  common  sense  and  applicable 
to  common  life,  and  which  are  level  to  the  most  homely, 
while  they  fill  the  comprehension  of  the  sublimest  under- 
standing. 


276 


CHAPTER  XI. 

PREVALENCE  OF  UNITARIANISM  IN  THE  EARLY  AGES  OF  THE  CHRIS- 
TIAN CHURCH.  ORIGIN  AND  PROGRESS  OF  THE  TRINITARIAN  UOC- 
TRINE. 

Although  Mr.  Wardlaw  (Preface,  p.  ix.)  declines  enter- 
ing upon  the  question  respecting  the  faith  of  the  primitive 
Christians,  in  various  parts  of  his  vohime,  he  takes  it  for 
granted  that  the  earlj  Church  was  Calvinistick,  thus  cloth- 
ing his  doctrines  in  the  venerable  vestments  of  antiquity, 
and  countenancing  them  by  the  authority  of  those,  who  had 
the  best  opportunities  for  receiving  them  in  their  unadulter- 
ated simplicity.  Not  only  in  reply  to  these  assumptions, 
but  for  other  important  reasons,  it  will  be  proper  to  devote 
a  Chapter  to  this  subject.  This  inquiry  is  in  its  results 
almost  as  favomable  to  Unitarian  principles  as  the  exami- 
nation of  the  Scriptures  themselves.  All  that  I  have  ever 
lead  has  tended  to  confirm  me  in  the  belief,  that  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity,  as  now  held  by  the  orthodox,  was  not 
generally  received  in  the  Christian  Church  until  the  5th  or 
6th  century.  Instead  of  bringing  passages  to  prove  this  fact 
from  the  ancient  Christian  writers  themselves,  which  would 
lead  into  a  long,  learned,  and  unpopular  discussion,  and  for 
which  likewise  I  am  wholly  unqualified,  I  think  it  amply 
sufficient  to  cite  the  opinions  of  certain  eminent  theologians 
in  modern  times,  who  devoted  themselves  with  unwearied 
assiduity  to  the  study  of  the  ancient  Fathers,  and  who,  be- 
ing firm  believers  in  the  Trinitarian  system,  could  not  be 
inclined  to  mis-state  or  discolour  facts  in  favour  of  the  op- 
posite hypothesis. 

1.  Tiie  first  testimony,  which  I  shall  produce  to  prove 
the  universal  prevalence  of  Unilarianism  in  the  primitive 
churchj  is  that  of  the  learned  historian,  Mobheim.     He 


277 

gives  the  following  account  of  the  doctrines,  taught  and 
inainfained  by  Christians  in  the  first  and  second  centuries. 
(See  Maclaine's  Translation,  V.  I.  p.  183.  also,  p.  184—187, 
115,  &c.) 

**  The  Christian  system,  as  it  was  hitherto  taught,  pre- 
served its  native  and  beautiful  simplicity,  and  was  com- 
prehended in  a  small  number  of  articles.  The  public 
teachers  inculcated  no  o(her  doctrines,  than  those  that 
are  contained  in  what  is  commonly  called  the  Apostles^ 
Creed  :  and,  in  the  method  of  illustrating  them,  all  vain 
subtleties,  all  mysterious  researches,  every  thing  that  v^as 
beyond  the  reach  of  common  capacities,  were  carefully 
avoided.  This  will  by  no  means  appear  surprising  to  those 
"who  consider,  that,  at  this  time,  there  was  not  the  least 
controversy  about  those  capital  doctrines  of  Christianity, 
which  were  afterwards  so  keenly  debated  in  the  church  ; 
and  who  reflect,  that  the  bishops  of  these  primitive  times 
were,  for  the  most  part,  plain  and  illiterate  men,  remarkable 
rather  for  their  piety  and  zeal,  than  for  their  learning  and 
eloquence." 

2.  The  second  testimony  to  the  Unitarianism  of  the 
primitive  Church  is  that  of  Flacius  Illyricus,  one  of  the 
most  learned  and  zealous  of  the  Lutheran  Reformers.  1 
quote  his  opinion  from  the  works  of  Dr.  Lardner,  (V.  iv.  p. 
61,62.)  together  with  the  observations  of  that  most  candid, 
judicious,  and  erudite  author. 

'^According  to  Matthias  Flacius  Illyricus,  in  the  preface 
to  his  Clavis  Scripturae,  or  Key  to  the  Scriptures,  'The 
Christian  writers,  who  lived  soon  after  Cluist  and  his  apos- 
tles, discoursed  like  philosophers,  of  the  law  and  its  moral 
precepts,  and  of  the  nature  of  virtue  and  vice  ;  but  they 
were  totally  ignorant  of  man's  natural  corruption,  and  the 
mysteries  of  the  gospel  and  Christ's  benefits.'  '  His  coun- 
tryman St.  Jerora,'  he  says,  '  was  well  skilled  in  the   laii- 


278 

guages,  and  endeavoured  to  explain  the  Scriptures  bj  ver- 
sions and  commentaries.  But  after  all  he  was  able  to  do 
verj  little,  being  ignorant  of  the  human  disease,  and  of 
Christ  the  physician  :  and  wanting  both  the  key  of  Scrip- 
ture, and  the  lamb  of  God  to  open  to  him.' 

"  The  same  Flacius,  or  some  other  learned  writer  of  his 
time,  in  the  preface  to  the  Centuriae  Magdeburgenses,  ob- 
serves of  Eusebius  bishop  of  Ctesarea  :  '  That  it  is  a  very 
low  and  imperfect  description,  which  he  gives  of  a  Christian  ; 
making  him  only  a  man,  who  by  the  knowledge  of  Christ 
and  his  doctrine,  is  brought  to  the  worship  of  the  one  true 
God,  and  the  practice  of  sobriety,  righteousness,  patience, 
and  other  virtues.  But  he  has  not  a  word  about  regenera- 
tion, or  imputed  righteousness.* 

"  Poor,  ignorant  primitive  Christians  !  I  wonder,  how 
they  could  find  the  way  to  heaven !  They  lived  near  the 
times  of  Christ  and  his  apostles.  They  highly  valued,  and 
diligently  read  the  holy  Scriptures,  and  some  wrote  com- 
mentaries upon  them  ;  but  yet,  it  seems,  they  knew  little 
ornothing  of  their  religion;  though  they  embraced  and  pro- 
fessed it  with  the  manifest  hazard  of  all  earthly  good  things, 
and  many  of  them  laid  down  their  lives,  rather  than  renounce 
it.  Truly  we  of  these  times  are  very  happy  in  our  ortho- 
doxy ;  but  I  wish,  that  we  did  more  excel  in  those  virtues, 
which  they,  and  the  Scriptures  likewise,  I  think,  recommend, 
as  the  distinguishing  properties  of  a  Christian.  And  I  am 
not  a  little  apprehensive,  that  many  things,  which  now  make 
a  fair  show  among  us,  and  in  which  we  mightily  pride  our- 
selves, will  in  the  end  prove  weeds  only,  on  which  the  own- 
er of  the  ground  sets  no  value." 

3.  Another  leurned  Reformer  and  rigorous  defender  of 
Orthodoxy,  who  maintains  the  same  opinion,  is  M.  Jurieu. 


279 

Speaking  of  Ihe  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  as  believed  both  hy 
Papists  and  Calvinisls,  he  says,  "  Every  one  knows  that  this 
mystery  remained  incomplete,  (informe,)  without  its  right 
form  or  shape,  until  the  council  of  Nice,  nay,  until  that  of 
Constantinople  ;"  and  he  asserts,  and  by  proper  citations 
fully  proves,  that  all  the  ancients  of  the  three  first  ages  be- 
lieved the  Son  to  have  been  created  by,  and  inferiour  to, 
the  Father.* 

4.  A  higher  authority  cannot  be  produced  than  that  of 
the  impartial  and  learned  Jesuit,  Petavius.  In  his  admir- 
ed and  valuable  work  upon  Dogmatical  Theology,  he  main- 
tains as  an  indisputable  fact,  and  proves  by  numerous  cita- 
tions and  a  very  learned  discussion  of  the  subject,  that  the 
Fathers,  who  flourished  before  the  council  of  Nice,  believ- 
ed that  the  Supreme  God  brought  the  Son  into  existence  in 
order  that  He  might  employ  him  as  his  instrument  and 
minister  in  the  formation  of  the  world,  and  that  the  Father 
not  only  existed  before  the  Son  as  his  creator,  but  was  su- 
periour  to  him  in  power.  Hence  Petavius  blames  them  for 
entertaining  opinions  of  the  Son,  which  were  unworthy  of 
his  dignity  and  altogether  absurd.  (Dogmata  Theol.  V.  H. 
Praef.  et  Lib.  I.  c.  3,  4,  5.) 

Thus  do  some  of  the  most  eminent  authors  of  the  Trini- 
tarian party  plainly  confess,  either  in  the  way  of  information 
or  in  the  way  of  complaint,  that  the  doctrines  of  three  co- 
equal and  co-eternal  Persons  in  the  Godhead,  and  of  the 
union  of  the  Divine  and  human  natures  in  Jesus  Christ, 
were  unnoticed  and  unknown  in  the  primitive  Church. 

*  See  Emiyn's  Tracts,  V.  II.  p.  277—283.  and  Henry  Taylor's  Apolo- 
gy of  Ben  Mordecai,  2d  edit.  V.  I.  p.  46,  Tliese  authors  refer  to  Jurieu's 
Lettres  Pastorales,  in  the  French,  No.  vi.  p.  126. 12jno.  which  I  have 
not  bad  an  opportunity  of  consulting. 


280 

Anolher  proof  thai  the  early  Christian  Church  was  Unn 
tarian  may  be  derived  from  a  review  of  the  controversies 
carried  on  upon  this  question  between  the  defenders  of  the 
two  opposite  systems.  Many  learned  men,  from  the  Refor- 
mation almost  to  our  own  times,  have  publickly  engaged  in  this 
dispute,  and  have  extracted  from  the  writings  of  the  Chris- 
tian Fathers  those  passages,  which  were  conceived  to  pre- 
sent evidence  in  favour  of  each  side  of  the  questions.  The 
latest  controversy  upon  this  subject  was  that  carried  on 
between  Dr.  Priestley,  who  maintained  that  all  Christians 
were  originally  Unitarians,  and  Bishop  Horsley,  who  em- 
ployed his  talents  and  eloquence  in  favour  of  the  opposite 
opinion.  Dr.  Priestley  with  great  labour  and  perseverance 
collected  an  abundance  of  passages  from  the  works  of  the 
Christian  Fathers,  to  show  that  Unitarianism  was  the  sys- 
tem held  by  the  primitive  believers,  and  to  disclose  the  ori- 
gin of  the  doctrines,  which  have  since  been  so  generally  re- 
ceived. His  "  History  of  the  corruptions  of  Christianity" 
was  answered  by  T):.  Horsley,  who,  I  presume,  was  not 
his  inferiour  in  learnings  and  who  was  highly  honoured  and 
rewarded  on  accoimt  of  the  able  services,  which  he  was 
conceived  to  have  rendered  to  his  own  party.  Yet  Dr. 
Horsley  has  completely  failed  in  proving  that  the  first 
Christians  were  orthodox,  or  rather  has  not  even  attempted 
it.  I  think  it  is  evident,  that  a  man  of  his  talents  would 
have  proved  the  Trinity  of  co-equal  and  co-eternal  Persons 
in  the  Godhead  to  be  a  doctrine  of  the  primitive  church,  if 
this  had  been  possible  ;  and,  since  he  has  not  cited  any  pas- 
sages from  the  earliest  Christian  writers,  in  which  this  doc- 
trine is  contained,  I  conclude  that  no  such  passages  are  to 
be  found.* 

[*  See  the  Review  of  the  controversy  between  Priestley  and  Hors>- 
Icy,  in  fhe  three  tirst  volumes  of  the  Camlx-idge  Repository,  particu- 
larly the  conclnsion,  Vol.  III.  p.  250 — 2139.     Edit.] 


i 


281 

Tlie  council  of  Nice,  to  which  allusion  is  made  in  the 
preceding  remarks,  was  lield  A.  D.  325.  It  was  an  assem- 
blage of  Bishops,  convened  from  all  quarters  by  the  en:pe« 
rour  Constantine,  with  a  view  to  terminate  the  disputes  which 
agitated  the  Church.  Here  was  passed,  by  a  majority  of 
votes,  the  celebrated  Niccne  Crced^  whicJi  has  since  been 
considered  as  one  of  the  principal  standards  of  orthodoxy. 
The  tenour  of  this  creed  however  proves,  that  even  then  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  did  not  amount  to  what  it  is  at  pre= 
sent.  Hitherto  no  one  appears  to  have  imagined  that  the 
three  persons  of  the  Trinity  were  co-equal.  In  this  creed 
the  Son  is  only  affirmed  to  be  "  of  the  smne  substance  with 
the  Father."  He  was  believed  to  be  subordinate  to  the 
Father  in  all  his  operations,  and  to  derive  from  him  all  his 
power  and  glory.  Hence  he  is  called  "  God  of  God," 
(S-ioc  (K  &«<3i/,)  whereas  the  Father  was  called  "  God  of  Him- 
self," QtuToB-tos,)  by  which  was  understood,  that  the  exist- ^ 
ence  and  nature  of  the  Son  were  derived  from  the  Father, 
but  that  the  Father  was  uncreated,  self-existent,  and  inde- 
pendent. We  also  remark,  that  this  creed  makes  no  men- 
tion of  the  Divinity  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  contains  no  hint 
whatsoever  of  the  doctrines  of  Original  Sin  and  Vicarious 
Atonement,  but  employs,  respecting  the  ends  of  Christ's  ad- 
vent and  death,  the  sublime  and  beautiful  language  of  the 
Scriptures. 

As  the  well-meaning  attempt  of  Constantine  to  restore 
peace  by  calling  this  council  proved  unsuccessful,  another 
was  summoned  to  meet  at  Constantinople,  A.  D.  381.  It 
was  here  for  the  first  time  solemnly  decreed,  that  the  Father, 
the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  are  equal  in  power  and  glory. 
In  431  another  council  was  held  at  Ephesus,  in  which  it 
was  voted,  that  the  two  natures  of  Christ  make  but  oni 
person,  and  in  451  another  was  held  at  Chalcedon  to  deter- 
mine, that,  notwithstanding  their  personal  union,  the  Divifle 

37 


282 

and  human  nafuies  of  Christ  continue  distinct.  Thus  the 
doctrine  was  gradually  brought  to  the  state,  in  which  it  has 
been  since  received  by  the  reputed  orthodox.  It  was  now 
established  by  Law,  and  supported  by  the  united  strength 
of  the  learned,  the  wealthy,  and  the  powerful.  Hence  the 
great  mass  of  Christian  professors  were  speedily  gained  over, 
and  in  a  short  time  the  extensive  schisrri  of  the  Mahoinme- 
dans  alone  remained  from  among  those  who  believed  in  tlie 
Divine  authority  of  Jesus,  to  advocate  the  despised  and  re- 
jected doctrine  of  the  Unify  of  God.  The  immediate  con- 
sequence was,  that  together  with  the  polytheism  of  the 
heathens,  Christendom  seemed  to  be  embracing  their  wretch- 
edness and  degradation.  The  whole  horizon  was  airain  en- 
veloped  in  the  dismal  mists  of  ignorance,  and  the  son  of 
RIGHTEOUSNESS  was  apparently  blotted  out  from  the  fir- 
mament of  heaven.  "  Darkness  covered  the  earth,  and  gross 
darkness  the  people." 

Although  therefore  I  concede  to  Mr.  Wardlaw  that  his 
doctrine  has  been  supported  by  all  the  governments  of 
Christendom  since  the  end  of  the  fifth  century,  I  maintain 
that  this  circumstance  tells  little  indeed  in  its  favour.  During 
the  four  first  ages,  we  have  the  most  abundant  evidence, 
that  Unitarianism  was  the  only  acknowledged  form  of 
Christianity. 

To  Unitarians  then  we  are  indebted  for  the  preservatioH 
of  the  Gospel,  when  its  very  existence  was  threatened  by 
the  fiercest  persecution.  They  were  Unitarians,  who  not 
only  adorned  Christianity  by  the  excellence  of  their  lives, 
but  defended  it  by  their  deaths.  Without  their  efforts  and 
sacrifices  the  Scriptures  would  have  been  destrojed,  the 
Gospel  lost.  In  short,  to  them,  under  God,  we  owe  almost 
all  the  religion  and  virtue,  which  now  exists  in  the  Morld. 
I  liumbly   conceive,    that  these   facts    should   produce  in 


I 


283 

Christians  of  every  sect  some  respect  for  Unitarianism,  but 
that  they  should  weigh  with  peculiar  force  upon  the  Unita- 
rians of  modern  times,  by  inciting  them  to  emulate  all  the 
great  and  amiable  virtues  of  these  first  members  of  their 
sect,  to  guard  against  a  second  corruption  of  their  princi- 
ples, and  to  maintain  with  zeal,  sincerity,  and  mutual  aflec- 
tion,  that  great  cause,  in  which  so  many  thousands  of  their 
primitive  brethren  expired. 


284 


CHAPTER  XII. 

Other  doctrines  of  mr.  wardlaw's  discourses,     correspondence' 
between  niji  and  the  author.     conclcsion. 

I  HAVE  now  staled  the  evidence  for  tiie  strict  Unity  of 
God,  in  opposition  to  the  doctrine  of  a  Trinity  of  persons 
in  the  Godhead,  and  for  the  inferiority  of  Jesus  Christ  in 
opposition  to  the  opinion  of  his  Divine  and  human  natures, 
deriving  my  arguments  from  the  appearances  of  the  sur- 
rountling  world,  from  the  decUirations  of  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures, and  from  the  history  of  the  Primitive  Church.  Every 
reader  will  be  able,  by  the  cool  and  dispassionate  examina- 
tion of  what  I  have  written,  to  decide  for  himself  these 
momentous  questions.  The  impression  made  upon  my  own 
mind  by  considering  the  various  evidences  which  1  have 
brought  together  is,  that  if  it  be  not  certain  that  the  com- 
jnonly  received  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  false,  there  is  an 
end  of  all  religion  and  no  certainty  upon  any  subject. 

If  these  main  questions  be  decided,  there  is  no  occasion 
to  enter  upon  the  discussion  of  the  remaining  topicks,  which 
Mr,  Wardlaw  agitates  in  his  volume.  It  will  be  allowed, 
that  Unitarians  are  entitled  to  the  much  honoured  name 
of  Christians,  so  that  the  controversial  part  of  the  last 
Piscourse  needs  no  distinct  reply.  With  respect  to  the 
nth  and  12th  Discourses,  "  C,.'  the  lujluences  of  the  Boly 
^piril,'''  it  is  enough  to  observe,  that  tliey  proceed  throughT 
put  upon  a  misrepresentation  of  Unitarianisin  ;  for  Unitari- 
ana  have  in  general,  though  not  universally,  confessed  their 
need  of  such  Inlluences,  and  have  been  accustomed  to  pray 
fof  the  participation  of  them,  conceiving  however  that  thcj 


i 


285 

are  conferred  hy  the  one  true  God,  the  Father,  and  not  by 
a  distinct  Divine  agent,  and  that  they  assist  and  carry 
forward,  instead  of  preventing  or  anticipating,  our  own 
endeavours  to  do  the  will  of  God. — The  Calvinistick  view 
of  Atonement,  according  to  Mr.  Wardlaw's  own  confession, 
falls  with  the  doctrine  of  our  Saviour's  Supreme  Divinity. 
So  far  as  the  doctrine  of  satisfaction  by  the  death  of  Christ 
opposes  the  Scriptural  representations  of  the  free  grace 
and  mercy  of  God  towards  penitents,  every  reader  will 
find  the  best  antidote  in  the  humble  and  serious  examina- 
tion of  the  Sacred  Volume.  I  conceive  that  there  is  not 
the  least  necessity  for  my  entering  upon  this  subject.  Our 
various  duties  towards  God,  our  fellow- creatures,  and  our- 
selves, and  the  terms  of  our  acceptance  with  the  Almighty, 
are  so  plainly,  so  forcibly,  and  so  repeatedly  stated  in  the 
Scriptures,  that  all  persons  of  honest  minds  may  there  find 
the  easiest  answer  to  the  question,  "  What  shall  I  do  to 
inherit  eternal  life?" 

When  I  began  to  compose  this  Vindication,  I  formed 
after  much  thought  the  resolution  of  requesting  Mr.  Ward- 
law  to  review  the  manuscript  before  it  went  to  the  press  ; 
and,  when  I  seemed  to  be  drawing  towards  a  conclusion,  I 
communicated  my  wishes  to  him  in  the  following  letter. 

"  To  THE  Rev.  Ralph  Wardlaw,  Glasgow." 

"  Glasgow,  Oct.  nth,  1814. 
MY    DEAR    SIR, 

"  I  am  sensible  that  I  have  great  need  of  your 
indulgence  for  neglecting  so  long  to  acknowledge  the  receipt 
of  your  late  Publication.  My  delay  has  been  occasioned 
by  a  variety  of  avocations,  which  prevented  me  froiu  tiun- 
ing  myself  to  this  subject  until  about  six  weeks  ago.    Hav- 


286 

ing  now  perused  your  Discourses  with  great  diligence,  I 
have  the  pleasure  of  thanking  you  most  sincerely  for  your 
obliging  attention  in  sending  me  a  copy.  I  shall  not  in  this 
letter  give  any  opinion  of  the  work,  because  you  will  find 
my  thoughts  freely  expressed,  both  as  to  its  merits  and  its 
defects,  in  the  Reply  which  will  shortly  appear.  But  I  ha\  e 
a  request  to  make  of  you,  the  importance  of  which,  1  trust, 
merits  your  consideration.  Being  exceedingl}"  desirous  that 
our  controversy  should  go  no  further,  I  wish  you,  if  it  would 
not  interfere  too  much  with  your  many  useful  occupations, 
to  take  the  trouble  of  looking  over  my  manuscript  before 
it  goes  to  the  press,  with  the  three  following  views. 

"  In  the  first  place,  if  I  have  any  where  mistaken  or 
misrepresented  your  meaning,  I  shall  be  particularly  indebt- 
ed to  you,  if  you  will  point  out  to  me  my  errour ; 

"  Secondly,  if  you  perceive  any  of  my  own  statements 
or  reasonings  to  be  fallacious,  and  can  con\ince  me  with 
convenient  brevity  of  their  impropriety,  this  also  will  be 
a  great  favour,  and  I  shall  be  ready  in  each  instance  to  make 
a  publick  acknowledgment  of  my  obligation  to  you; 

"Thirdly,  if  you  should  think  that  I  have  detected  in 
your  work  any  inaccuracy,  mis-statement,  inconsistency, 
or  false  reasoning,  and  wish  to  retract  what  you  have  said, 
I  shall  gladly  allow  you  an  opportunity  of  doing  it  in  my 
pages  in  any  way,  the  most  agreeable  to  yourself,  which  I 
shall  think  consistent  with  what  is  incumbent  upon  me  in 
defending  my  side  of  the  question. 

"  Although  I  have  been  under  the  painful  necessity  of 
replying  to  a  considerable  number  of  what  appear  to  me  to 
be  palpable  mis-statements  of  facts  and  bitter  misrepresen- 
tations of  Unitarianism,  yet  believing  that  these  have  arisen 
from  no  worse  causes  than  carelessness,  ignorance,  and 
over-heated  zeal,  and  that  the  friendly  expressions  in  your 


287 

volume  are  fo  be  considered  as  the  true  index  of  jour  hearty 
I  am,  dear  Sir,  and  wish  to  remain, 

*'  Yours  with  sincere  respect  and  esteem, 

"James  Yates." 
"  P.  S.  I  shall  probably  prefix  this  letter  to  my  Reply, 
that,   if  any  disagreeable  consequences  do  ensue  from  this 
controversy,  the  publick  may  see  that  1  am  not  responsible 
for  them.  j.  y." 

At  the  time  when  this  letter  was  delivered,  Mr.  Ward- 
law  was  from  home.  Having  delayed  my  publication  so 
long,  I  thought  it  necessary  to  begin  the  printing  of  it,  but 
repeated,  that  I  would  gladly  submit  to  him  the  whole  of 
the  manuscript  except  a  few  of  the  first  pagco.  After  his 
return  I  received  the  following  answer. 

*'  To  THE  Rev.  James  Yates,  Glasgow." 
"  My  Dear  Sir, 

"  On  my  return  from  Ireland  ten  days  ago,  I 
found  awaiting  me  your  letter  of  the  l7th  October;  my  re- 
ply to  which  has  been  delayed  by  a  variety  of  necessary 
engagements  since  coming  home.  I  am  obliged  by  your  po- 
lite acknowledgments  of  the  copy  of  my  Work  I  had  the 
pleasure  of  sending  vou  at  the  time  of  its  publication.  But 
with  the  proposal  which  it  is  the  chief  object  of  your  letter 
to  make  and  to  recommend,  I  cannot  comply  for  the  follow- 


mg  reasons 


"  1.  Even  had  the  proposal  been  in  its  own  nature  rea- 
sonable and  fair,  such  compliance  would  have  been  preclud- 
ed by  the  circumstance,  that  your  M.S.  having  now  gone  to 
press,  [  could  not  have  the  whole  of  it  subjected  to  my  in- 
spection. 

"  2.  The  hasty  perusal  of  a  M.S.  either  already  at  press, 
or  longing  to   be   there^  would  be  quite  incompatible  with 


288 

(hat  mature  and  deliberate  examination,  which,  on  a  subject 
of  such  importance,  I  should  consider  requisite,  to  do  jus- 
tice, either  to  myself,  or,  which  is  of  unspeakably  greater 
consequence,  to  the  cause  which  I  have  undertaken  to 
plead. — But 

"  3.  The  proposal,  in  itself,  is  on  various  accounts  altogeth- 
er inadmissible.  First  of  all,  my  reasonings,  as  you  hint,  must 
be  stated  '  with  convenient  brevity  ;^  i.  e.  with  brevity  con- 
venient for  you,  but  which  might  not  be,  on  all  occasions, 
quite  convenient  for  myself.  Indeed,  I  should  feel  at  a  loss 
to  know,  for  my  direction  in  writing,  what  degree  of  lati- 
tude this  phrase  is  intended  to  allow  me. — 2dly,  While  you 
would  '  gladly  allow  me  an  opportunity'  of  making  my  con- 
cessions and  retractions  '  in  your  pages'  *  in  any  way  the 
most  agreeable  to  myself,'  it  m.ust  still  of  course  be  in  such 
a  way  *  as  you  7vill  think  consistent  with  what  is  incumbent 
on  you  in  defending  your  side  of  the  question.^  Now,  do 
you  seriously  think  it  would  be  quite  consistent  with  '  what  is 
incumbent  on  me,  in  defending  my  side  of  the  question,'  to 
commit  the  manner  of  my  reply  to  the  option  of  my  oppo- 
nent, giving  him  a  veto  on  my  own  choice  ? — 3dly,  Am  I 
to  understand  that  you  would  allow  whatever  I  might  think 
proper  to  write,  to  be  inserted  in  your  pages  withoiit  note 
or  comment  ? — without  any  attempt  on  your  part  to  invali- 
date its  force  ? — Were  you  to  do  this,  you  would,  I  think, 
be  unfaithful  to  yourself: — and  yet  were  you  to  do  other- 
wise, you  would  be  unfaithful  to  me ;  for  to  offer  any  re- 
marks in  the  way  of  answer,  which  had  not  previously  been 
submitted  to  my  revision,  would  be  palpable  deceit  and 
treachery,  such  as  might  still  necessitate,  on  my  part,  that 
prolongation  of  the  controversy  which  you  so  strongly  de- 
precate. 

"  Who  would  consent  to  be  respondent,  in  such  circum- 
stances, and  on  such  conditions,  as  these  ?  I  am  very  sure 


i 


28S 

you  would  not  yourself,  nor  do  I  find  it  easj'^  to  bring  my- 
self to  the  persuasion,  that  you  ever  could  seriously  indulge 
any  expectation  of  ray  compliance. 

"  In  the  Postscript  to  yoin  letter,  you  intiinate  that  '  you 
will  probal.ly  prefix  your  letter  to  your  intended  Reply,  that 
if  any  disagreeable  consequences  do  ensue  from  this  con- 
troversy, the  publick  may  see  that  you  are  not  responsible 
for  them.' 

"  To  what  description  of  disagreeable  consequences  you 
here  refer,  I  am  at  a  loss  to  understand.  And  I  am  still 
more  at  a  loss  to  imagine  how  the  publication  of  your  letter 
is  to  exonerate  you  from  responsibility  as  to  such  conse- 
quences, should  they  ensue. — You  and  I,  my  dear  Sir,  are 
both  of  us  responsible — and  responsible  to  a  much  higher 
Tribunal  than  that  of  the  Publick,  for  every  thing  we  preach 
and  every  thing  we  publish,  on  this  and  on  all  other  sub- 
jects ; — and  it  well  becomes  us,  both  to  preach  and  to  pub- 
lish, under  the  solemn  impression  of  such  responsibility. — 
Whether  it  will  be  needful  for  me,  in  justice  to  the  cause 
of  truth,  to  answer  your  Reply,  I  cannot  tell,  till  I  shall 
have  seen  and  examined  it.  But  the  controversy  must  go 
on  in  the  usual  course.  A  co-partnery  work,  such  as  you 
propose,  would  be,  I  presume,  quite  unique  ;  and  in  my 
judgment,  as  unsatisfactory  as  unprecedented.  It  is  my 
earnest  prayer  to  God,  that  He  may  direct  both  my  under- 
standing and  my  spirit  in  maintaining  his  cause  : — and  I 
trust  you  will  excuse  me  for  just  hinting,  that  the  detection 
of  a  few  inaccurate  statements  or  inconclusive  reasonings,  in 
my  volume,  (if  such  there  be,)  may  leave  entirely  unatFeCted 
the  great  mass  and  main  body  of  the  argument.  With  the 
skill  of  an  expert  sharp-sliooter,  you  may  descry,  and  jou 
may  disable  or  kill,  a  detached  straggler  here  and  there 
abotit  the  walls,  while  the  Fortress  remains  in  impregnable 
possession  of  the  Garrison. 

38 


296 

"  I  trust  I  shall  ever  be  preserved  from  that  self-sufficient 
follj,  which  will  contend  against  conviction,  rather  than 
Lumble  itself  to  the  acknowledgment  of  an  errour.  The 
charges,  however,  of  <  ignorance,''  and  *  carelessness,^  and 
'  bitler  misrepresentation,^  it  belongs  to  jou,  on  the  present 
occasion,  to  substantiate.  As  to '  overheated  zeal,''  it  is  ray 
idaily  complaint  to  the  master  whom  I  serve  that  its  tempe- 
rature is  so  low. 

"  The  'friendly  expressions^  in  my  Volume  were  used, 
you  may  be  well  assured,  bona  fide.  I  cannot  be  more  your 
friend,  than  by  wishing  you  brought  to  a  change  of  mind, 
and  to  the  acknowledgment  of  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus. 
And,  with  the  same  sincerity  which  diclaled  the  expressions 
you  allude  to,  I  subscribe  myself, 

^'  Mr  Dear  Sir, 

"  Respectfully  yours, 

"  Ralph  Wardlaw." 

f  North  Montrose-Street,  ) 
November  7th,  1814."        5 

"  P.  S.  I  take  it  for  granted,  that  if  you  do  prefix  your 

letter  lo  your  Replj^,  agreeably  to  the  intention  intimated  in 

your  Postscript,  you  will  feel  the  proptiety  of  inserting  this 

answep  along  with  it.  R.  W." 

When  I  sent  my  letter  to  Mr.  Wardlaw,  I  had  no  idea 
that  he  would  question  my  sincerity,  and  fully  hoped  that 
he  would  place  in  mc  such  confidence  as  would  enable  us 
to  pursue  this  friendly  project  of  mutual  improvement  and 
correction  :  for  without  mutual  confidence  the  scheme  was 
pvldently  impracticable.  I  am  conscious  of  no  frivolous  or 
dishonourable  motive  in  making  the  request.  If  Mr.  Ward- 
law  had  submitted  the  same  proposal  to  me  respecting  his 
Piscourses,  I  should  have  complied  with  the  greatest  plea- 
sjire,  and  I  think  I  could  have  been  of  some  service  to  hii^: 


291 

1  have  no  doubt  that  he  might  also  have  been  serviceable  t^ 
me  ;  for,  although  I  have  used  my  best  endeavours  to  be 
accurate  In  my  statements,  I  cannot  suppose  that  ihej  are 
free  from  those  errours,  which  must  be  looked  for  in  every 
human  production.  But  my  principal  wish  was,  that  Mr. 
Wardlaw  should  be  apprised  of  some  of  the  instances 
of  carelessness^  indiscretion,  and  misrepresentation,  which 
abound  in  his  Volum.e,  and  which  I  have  been  under  the 
necessity  of  noticing  to  such  a  degree  as  must  wholly  de- 
stroy its  credit  in  the  apprehension  of  all  impartial  judges. 
I  imagined,  that  in  most  of  the  cases,  which  I  have  brought 
forward,  he  would  perceive  his  errour  almost  as  soon  as  it 
was  laid  before  him,  and  a  simple  acknowledgment  of  inad- 
vertency would  have  sufficed  to  put  our  readers  in  posses- 
sion of  those  facts,  by  which  the  questions  between  us  must 
be  decided.  Some  of  the  expressions  in  my  letter  are  cer- 
tainly harsh.  I  used  them,  that  he  might  sec  the  full  ex- 
tent of  my  accusations  against  him,  and  because  I  always 
think  it  proper  to  speak  of  another  in  severer  language  to 
himself  than  to  any  one  else.  Whether  my  charges  have 
been  substantiated,  the  reader  must  judge.  I  again  repeat, 
that  from  my  heart,  I  acquit  Mr.  Wardlaw  of  any  wilful 
and  deliberate  mis-statements,  and  attribute  his  faulty  re- 
presentations to  ignorance  of  the  subject,  carelessness  about 
particulars,  and  over-heated  seal,  a  quality  inestimable  ia! 
the  application  of  sound  principles  to  practice,  but  wholly 
out  of  place,  when  applied  to  the  investigation  of  important 
truths.  Whatever  inaccuracies  or  improprieties  shall  be 
pointed  out  to  me  in  this  Volume,  I  hope  I  shall  attentively 
consider  and  take  the  first  opportunity  to  correct  them,  and 
be  especially  gratified  by  expunging  any  expressions,  which 
appear  disrespectful  to  Mr.  Wardlaw.  In  writing  these 
Hnes  I  joyfully  erase  from  the  tablet  of  my  memory  every 
feeling  of  hostility,  and  wish  to  behave  henceforfh  toward* 


292 

my  opponent — my  friend,  as  his  moral  and  intellectual  ex- 
cellenoies  prompt  my  esteem.  "  Hie  Ctestus  avtemque  re- 
pono." 

Before  concluding  this  work,  I  wish  to  add  a  few  obser- 
vations upon  the  measures,  which  may  he  adopted  in  conse- 
quence of  the  inlroduclion  of  Unitarianism,  and  its  prohable 
increase,   in  this   part   of  the   kingdom.      Considering  the 
clear,  abundant,  and  unanswerable  eviJence  to  the  truth  of 
the  Unitarian  doctrines,   the  tolerant  and  lilieral  spirit,  the 
diffusion  of  information   upon  general  subjects,  the  habits 
of  inquiry  and  the  turn  for  speculation,  as  well  as  the  usual 
gaod  sense,  which  pievai!  among  the  middling  and   lower 
orders  of  society    throughout  Scotland,    it  appears  to  me 
that  the  extensive  propagation  of  Unitarian  sentiments  may 
reasonably  be  expected.     The  only  material  cause,  which 
is  likely  to  obstruct  their  progress,  seems  to  be  this  ;  that, 
as  many  of  those  who  embrace  Unitarian  principles  will  be 
men  more  disposed  to   enquire   after   truth    than    to  apply 
it  steadily  to  practice  when  found,  and  as  the  discussion  of 
controverted  questions  in  theology    has  a  natural   tendency 
to  weaken  the  devotional  feelings,  the  converts  to  Unitari- 
anism may  become   careless  and  indifferent     about    their 
religious  duties,  and  adopt  habits  of  useless  roving  specula- 
tion to  the  neglect  of  their  hearts  and  lives.      Instead  of 
concealing  this  formidable  evil,  it  is  infinitely  wiser  to  bring 
it  fully  into  view,  so  that  we  may  be  on  our  guard    against 
it.       If  Unitarians,  in  the   midst  of   that  joy   which   often 
overpowers  them  upon  the  first  breaking  in  of  the  light,  be 
careful  not    to    split  upon  this  rock;  if  they  be  as  anxious 
to  improve  their  hearts  as  to  inform  their  understandings ; 
if  they  not  only  strive  after  the  attainment  of  correct  ideaSy 
but  attend  yet  more  to  the  cultivation  of  the  devotional,  the 
moral,  and  the  syntpathetick/ce/iHg'S  ;  if  they  diligently  study 
the  Sacred  Volume,  not  so  much  to  tind  whether  it  contains 


293 

the  tloctiines  of  Ihis  or  that  seel,  as  to  lay  up  stores  of  con? 
solation  for  tlie  hour  of  distress,  and  maxims  for  the  dally 
regulaiioii  of  their  conduct ;  in  short,  if  they  bear  in  mind, 
that  "  the  end  of  the  commandment  is  charity  out  of  a  pure 
heart,"  and  that  the  value  of  the  Gospel  itself  consists  only 
in  its  tendency  to  make  men  wise  unto  salvation  ;  then  Uni- 
tariaiiism  will  assuredly  triumph  over  the  united  opposition 
of  prejaidice,  interest,  and  passion  ;  it  is  gone  forth  con- 
quering, and  to  conquer. 

But,  if  the  progress  of  Unilarianism  in  Scotland  is  in  the 
present  state  of  things  to  be  expected,  what  ought  to  be 
done  to  prevent  those  divisions  in  churches,  those  dissen- 
sions in  families,  that  cold  reserve,  that  closeness  and  insin- 
cerity, which  in  too  many  cases  will  be  likely  to  accompany 
a  change  of  religious  sentiment.  The  learned  Bishop  Burgess 
has  lately  published  a  book,  in  which  he  advises  that  the 
Government  should  pass  a  law,  condemning  all  avowed  and 
■obstinate  Unitarians  to  three  years'  imprisonment.  But  the 
proposal  comes  at  least  a  century  too  late.  Many  others  will 
endeavour  by  ignorant  misrepresentation  and  angry  remon- 
strances to  terrify  their  orthodox  brethren  from  reading 
Unitarian  books,  or  examining  Unitarian  arguments.  But 
all  in  vain :  opinions  work  their  way  in  secret ;  the  refined 
and  subtle  essence  of  truth  eludes  the  tyranny  of  man ;  no 
•human  voice  can  say,  Halt !  to  the  march  of  intellect.  In- 
stead of  these  very  objectionable  methods  of  obviating  the 
evils,  which  are  to  be  feared  from  the  progress  of  Uni- 
tarianism,  I  give  my  humble,  but  decided  opinion  in  favour 
tjf  a  measure,  which  is  at  the  same  time  recommended  by 
many  other  considerations  of  still  greater  weight ;  a 
measure,  simple,  easy,  righteous,  and  conciliatory  ;  a 
measure,  which,  after  calm  and  attentive  deliberation,  all 
wise,  and  most  good  men  will  cordially  approve.  It  is,  that 
the  General  Assembly  of  the  Church  of  Scotland  should  ns 


294 

longer  enforce  subscription  to  the  Westminster  Confession 
of  Faith,  at  least  that  they  should  permit  exceptions  to  be 
made  to  so  much  of  it  as  relates  to  the  Trinity,  and  thus 
allow  conscientious  Unitarians  to  become  ministers  in  the 
Establishment  upon  the  same  footing  with  Trinitarian  can- 
didates. If  that  much  respected  body  shall  not  see  fit  to 
pass  an  act  to  this  effect,  I  am  not  without  hopes,  that  the 
example  will  be  set  them  by  some  of  the  sects  of  Presby- 
terian Dissenters,  those  taking  the  lead,  who  are  the  most 
distinguished  by  their  attachment  to  the  Scriptures  in  pre- 
ference to  creeds  of  human  invention ;  and  it  will  in  all 
probability  be  found,  that  they,  who  shall  first,  together 
with  the  Independents,  the  Baptists,  and  the  Unitarians, 
avow  and  pursue  the  principle  of  making  the  Bible  the  only 
standard  of  their  faith  and  practice,  will  be  upon  the  whole 
the  most  distinguished  by  vigour  and  clearness  of  under- 
standing, refinement  and  elevation  of  sentiment,  sobriety  of 
manners,  commercial  integrity  and  industry,  and  general 
respectability,  good  order,  and  happiness.  i 

I  have  now  executed  my  task.  I  recommend  this  humble 
Treatise  to  the  blessing  of  the  Almighty.  Bidding  adieu  to 
controversy,  it  is  my  wish  to  indulge  the  flow  of  moral  and 
religious  feeling,  and  to  employ  the  faculties,  which  God  has 
given  me,  to  the  best  of  my  ability,  in  useful  labours  among 
the  living,  and  instructive  studies  with  the  venerable  dead. 


i 


APPENDIX. 


APPENDIX. 


PAGE  147. 

It  may  be  doubted,  whether  the  Author  has  not  stated  errone- 
ously the  sentiments  of  Dr.  Paley,  as  respects  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity.  A  few  lines  have  been  omitted  at  the  conclusion 
of  the  paragra[)h,  as  containing  a  censure  upon  Dr.  Paley,  not 
authorized  by  an  expression,  which  was  probably  not  intended  to 
be  understood  very  seriously. 

DISSERTATION,  PAGE  173. 

•N  THE  KIND  AND  DEGRRE  OF  EVIDENCE  NKCESSART  TO  ESTABLISH  THE  DOCTRINK 
OF  THE  TRINITY,  AND  BY  WHICH  WE  MIGHT  EXPECT  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE 
TRINITY    WOULD    BE    SUFPORTED    IN    THE    SCRIPTDRES. 

It  will  easily  be  acknowledged,  that  in  all  inquiries  which 
depend  on  moral  evidence,  the  correctness  of  our  conclusions  will 
be  very  much  affected  by  the  standard  of  proof  by  which  we 
try  them.  If  this  standard  is  either  too  high  or  too  low,  if  we 
require  either  too  much  or  too  little  evidence,  we  may  disbelieve 
where  we  ought  to  be  convinced,  or  be  convinced  where  we 
ought  to  disbelieve.  The  skeptick,  who  demands  a  kind  and 
degree  of  proof  inconsistent  with  our  moral  nature,  our  state  of 
probation,  and  the  analogy  of  the  divine  government,  is  led  to 
throw  away  the  inestimable  aids,  and  motives,  and  consolations, 
and  hopes  of  Christianity.  The  believer  in  Transubstantiation, 
on  the  other  hand,  who  is  satisfied  with  evidence  insufficient 
both  in  its  measure  and  its  nature,  is  led  to  embrace  a  faith, 
%vhich  makes  the  gospel  itself  incredible,  by  making  it  responsi- 
ble for  a  doctrine  contradictory  to  nature,  to  reason,  and  to 
other  parts  of  the  scriptures  themselves.     It  is  evidently  very 

39 


n 

iinportant,  therefore,  that  we  should  guard  against  the  danger 
of  requiring  too  much,  or  of  being  contented  with  too  little 
proof  of  our  religious  opinions.  For  tliis  reason  it  seems  to 
be  proper,  that  one,  who  has  never  critically  examined  the 
proofs  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  should  enquire,  by  what 
sort  of  evidence  we  may  justly  expect  such  a  doctrine  would  be 
accompanied,  Mr.  Yates  has  touched  on  this  subject :  but  its 
importance  may  be  thought  to  justify  a  more  ample  considera- 
tion. 

A  doctrine  may,  a  priori,  ov  previously  to  a  minute  imiuiry 
into  its  proofs,  have  a  presumption  either  in  its  favour,  or  against 
it.  A  proposition  which  is  at  once  perceived  to  be  consonant  to 
reason  and  the  general  tenour  of  the  scriptures,  will  have  a 
previous  presumption  in  its  favour,  and  may  be  believed  to  be  a 
true  doctrine  of  Christianity,  with  little  hesitation.  On  the  con- 
trary, a  proposition,  which  is  apparently  both  irrational  and 
unscriptural,  will  have  a  previous  presumption  against  it,  and 
requires  a  more  scrupulous  examination,  and  a  fuller  and  more 
unequivocal  evidence,  before  it  can  be  embraced.  There  is  a 
previous  probability,  for  example,  that  the  doctrine  of  a  provi- 
dence will  be  found  in  the  New  Testament,  and  a  previous  im- 
probability, that  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation  w  ill  be  found 
there. 

In  applying  this  general  principle,  Ave  may  safely  say,  that 
there  is  a  strong  presumption  that  the  scriptures  will  not  be  found 
to  contain  any  doctrine  apparently  inconsistent  with  the  unity 
of  God.  There  is  no  truth  of  greater  clearness  or  higher  autho- 
rity, than  that  there  is  but  one  God.  Both  philosophy  and  reve- 
lation unite  in  confirming  it.  The  systematical  unity  and  har- 
mony of  design*  conspicuous  throughout  the  universe,  extending 
to  the  moral  as  well  as  the  physical  world,!  lead  us  to  the  con- 
clusion that  the  cause  of  all  is  One.  All  the  arguments,  which 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  God,  lead  us  to  the  same  conclu- 
sion. They  all  result  in  this,  that  the  non-existence  of  an  infi- 
nite, original,  eternal  mind,  implies  an  absurdity,  a  contradiction, 

*  See  Part  II,  Chap.  1. 

t  Stewart's  Philosophy  of  the  Miud,  Vol.  II.  p.  324—7.    Boston  ed. 


m 

an  impossibility.  But  this  reasoning  can  hoki  of  only  one  sucU 
mind.  For,  since  one  such  mind  is  adequate  to  every  eiTect,  it' 
it  couUI  be  maintained  that  more  than  one  could  exist,  it  might 
be  said  of  ca<:A  of  them,  separately,  that  its  nonexistence  is  pos- 
sible ;  and  necessary  existence,  therefore,  could  be  proved  of 
neitriei' of  them.  That  therefore,  which  is  the  essence  of  every 
argument  for  the  being  of  a  God,  would  lose  all  its  force,  and 
Atheism  would  be  established  on  the  ruins  of  all  religion.  But, 
indeed,  the  existence  of  one  infinite  mind  excludes,  by  the  very 
definition  of  infinity,  the  possibility  that  there  should  be  more 
than  one.  If  we  attempt  to  form  the  supposition  of  a  second  in- 
finite Being,  we  at  once  see,  that  it  must  in  every  particular  be 
entirely  coincident  with  the  first;  that  is  to  say,  as  to  all  our 
ideas,  it  will  necessarily  be  one  and  the  same.* 

To  tliis  great  truth,  that  there  is  but  one  God,  both  the  Jew- 
ish and  Christian  revelations  lend  all  the  weight  of  their  divine 
authority.  Nothiug  can  be  moi^  full  and  express  than  their 
testimonj'  to  this  point.  It  was  the  great  object  of  Judaism  to 
preserve  this  truth  amidst  the  jfoiytheism  of  the  ancient  world. 
So  sacred  was  it  esteemed  by  the  Jews,  that  it  was  a  custom  of 
theirs  even  till  modern  times,  to  repeat  every  morning  and  eve- 
ning the  passage  of  Deuteronomy.  Hear,  O  Israel,  Jehovah 
OUR  God,  Jehovah  is  one.  It  is  needless,  however,  to  multi- 
ply proofs  of  this  point,  since  it  is  one  of  those  primary  princi- 
ples, quod  semper,  quod  ubiquc,  quod  ah  omnibus  creditum.  All 
christians,  of  every  name,  with  whatever  inconsis'ency  it  may 
sometimes  be  done,  are  compelled  by  the  force  of  scripture  tes- 
timony to  acknowledge,  that  there  is  one  God,  and  that  there  is 

*  "  For  if  we  suppose  more  than  one,  it  is  plain,  since  the  attributes  of  infinite 
power,  knowledge  and  goodness  include  all  possible  perfection,  that  they  must  be 
entirely  alike  to  each  other  witliout  the  least  possible  variation.  They  will  there- 
fore entirely  coalesce  in  our  idea,  i.e.  be  one  to  us.  Since  they  fill  all  time  and  space, 
an-"  are  all  independent,  omnipotent,  omni.scient,  and  infinitely  benevolent,  their 
ideas  cannot  be  separated,  but  will  have  a  numerical  as  well  as  a  generical  identity. 
When  we  suppose  other  beings  geuerically  the  same,  and  yet  numerically  different, 
we  do,  at  the  same  time,  suppose,  that  they  exist  in  different  portions  of  time  and 
space  ;  which  circumstances  cannofhave  place  in  respect  of  the  supposed  plurality  of 
infinite  beings.  We  conclude  therefore  that  there  is  but  one  infinite  being,  or  GoH. " 
Hartley  on  Man,  Vol.  II,  p.  30,  4th  edition. 


none  other,  but  He.  We  are  authorized  by  this  universal  con- 
cession to  take  this  doctrine  as  an  axiom  in  all  our  reasonings  on 
this  subject,  and  to  say  that  wliatever  else  may  be  false,  this 
must  be  true. 

As  therefore  the  unity  of  God  stands  on  the  highest  possible 
evidence,  we  are  sure,  that  all  other  truths  of  religion  will  be 
really  consistent  with  it,  and  of  course  there  is  a  high  probability 
that  they  Avill  all  be  apparently  consistent  with  it.  We  ought  to 
view  every  proposition,  Avhich  seems  to  contradict  it,  with  doubt 
and  suspicion ;  for  Ave  are  certain,  that  such  a  proposition  must 
either  be  false,  or  else  that  we  do  not  understand  it.  We  are 
justified  therefore  in  saying,  that  there  is,  a  priori,  a  strong  pre- 
sumption against  any  proposition  which  apparently  interferes 
with  the  doctrine  of  the  Unity  of  God.  We  do  not  say  that  this 
presumption  is  so  strong  that  no  evidence  can  remove  it. 
But  we  must  all  admit,  that  till  the  compatibility  of  such  a  doc- 
trine with  this  primary  truth  is  rendered  manifest,  every  thing 
must  be  presumed  against  it,  and  nothing  in  its  favour. 

Now  there  is  scarcely  any  one  who  will  deny  that  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity  is  apparently  inconsistent  with  the  unity  of  God. 
There  is  a  strong  apparent  discordance,  we  must  all  own,  between 
the  two  propositions,  that  God  is  One,  and  that  God  is  Three. 
It  is  not  till  after  many  subtile  and  metajjhysical  distinctions  are 
made,  that  any  one  will  pretend  that  the  harmony  and  consistency 
between  them  become  visible.  This  is  true  of  all  the  technical 
statements  of  this  doctrine,  which  have  ever  been  given.  They 
have  undergone  many  changes  since  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 
Avas  finally  completed  towards  the  close  of  the  fourth  century  ;  but 
the  same  essential  difficulty  still  adheres  to  them  all.  It  must 
always  be  affirmed,  under  some  form  or  otlier,  by  every  believer 
in  a  Trinity  in  unity,  that  Three,  in  some  sense  or  other,  are  One, 
and  One  is  Three.  It  is  true,  that  Avhile  uny  term  of  the  proposi- 
tion is  declared  io  be  mysterious,  ineffable,  and  indefina- 
ble, it  is  impossible  to  demonstrate  that  it  affirms  a  contradic- 
tion. We  only  say  of  it  that  it  is  apparently  inconsistent  Avith 
the  doctrine  of  the  unity  of  God  in  the  natural  and  plain  meaning 
of  words.   We  say  only,  that  if  it  mean  any  thing  like  what  such 


words  noiild  mean  in  any  other  proposition,  it  means  something 
between  which,  and  the  assertion  that  three  Gods  are  one  God, 
it  is  difficult  to  discern  a  difference. 

The  apparc7it  inconsistency  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  with 
the  unity  of  God  becomes  much  stronger,  Avhen  we  examine 
the  practical  statements  that  are  given  of  it.  In  speaking  of  its 
theory,  its  advocates  secure  themselves  from  attack,  by  declining 
to  say  what  they  mean,  and  calling  that  a  mystery,  which  might 
otherwise  seem  to  be  a  contradiction.  "  Unless  we  have  some  notion 
of  the  thing  itself,"  Mr.  Wardlaw^  exultingly  asks,  "  on  what 
principle  can  we  possibly  make  out  its  contrariety  to  reason." 
But  the  case  is  different  in  the  practical  statements  of  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity.  When  the  proposition  is  entire,  and  the  contra- 
diction would  appear  manifest  if  words  were  allowed  to  bear  any 
distinct  meaning,  its  friends  protest,  that  they  use  the  word  "  Per- 
son" only  "  for  want  of  a  better  w  ord,"  and  declare,  that  we  have 
no  definite  conception  in  what  sense  it  is  to  be  understood.  But 
when  they  speak  of  the  "  Persons"  separately,  their  difficulties 
seem  all  to  vanish.  Mr.  Wardlaw  after  all  his  grave  descant  on 
mystery  and  things  above  reason,  in  stating  the  proposition  of  the 
Trinity,  when  he  comes  to  discourse  on  the  personality  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  suddenly  finds  a  flood  of  light  open  on  him.  His  ideas 
become  as  distinct  as  those  of  other  men,  and  it  is  evident  he 
means  by  "  Person"  what  every  one  else  means.  Thus  it  is  with 
all  the  believers  of  the  Trinity.  When  they  speak  of  the  persons 
who  compose  it  separately,  there  is  little  difficulty  in  understand- 
ing their  meaning.  They  ascribe  severally  to  the  Father,  to  the 
Son,  and  to  the  Holy  Ghost,  all  that  goes  to  make  up  our  ideas  of 
three  perfectly  distinct  Gods.  Each  has  a  different  name  ;  diffe- 
rent agencies  or  offices  ;  distinct  and  independent  power ;  and 
above  all,  each  is  a  distinct  object  of  supreme  worship  and  adora- 
tion. Of  the  Father,  it  may  be  said  that  He  is  the  infinite,  eter- 
nal, self-existent  God  ;  of  the  Son  it  may  be  said,  that  He  is  the 
infinite,  eternal,  self-existent  God  :  of  the  Holy  Ghost  it  may  be 
said,  that  He  is  the  infinite,  eternal,  self-existent  God.  It  is  ex- 
pressly declared,  that  these  are  not  merely  different  7iamcs  or 
different  modes  of  operation  of  the  same  perso*i.     The  pronoun* 


VI 

I,  Thou,  He,  may  be  used  as  freely  of  each  of  these  different 
"  subsistences,"  as  they  may  be  of  three  different  men.  Now  all 
we  say  of  this  doctrine,  ^vhich  applies  the  name  and  attributes  of 
God  to  three  distinct  and  independent  agents,  is,  that  to  a  com- 
mon mind  there  is  in  it  an  apparent  inconsislencj^  a  seeming  in- 
compatibility with  the  doctrine  that  there  is  One  God  and  none 
other  but  He.  The  most  zealous  Trinitarian  must  admit,  that  if 
the  same  proposition  were  found  in  the  Hindu  Mythology,  we 
should  take  it,  till  better  informed,  for  something  very  much  re- 
sembling a  contnuliction. 

The  use  we  make  of  these  facts  and  reasonings  is,  not  to  say 
that  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  cannot  be  found  in  the  scriptures, 
but  simply  that  we  should  not  expect  it  to  be  found  there.  There 
is  a  very  high  probabilitj'-,  a  strong  previous  presumption,  that  it 
will  not  be  found  there.  A  student  of  the  Bible  is  bound  to  take  it 
for  granted,  that  it  is  not  there,  till  it  is  proved  that  it  undoubtedly 
is ;  he  must  conclude  it  to  be  false,  till  it  is  fully  and  clearly  de- 
monstrated to  be  true.  Every  thing  must  be  presumed  against 
its  evidence,  and  nothing  in  its  favour.  It  will  prove  nothing 
for  such  a  doctrine,  that  passages  can  be  produced,  which  may 
possibly  mean  something  like  it,  unless  it  can  be  unequivocally 
shown,  that  the}'  cannot  possibly  mean  any  thing  else.  We  must 
all  sit  down  to  the  study  of  the  scriptures  as  Unitarians,  and 
nothing  but  their  clear  and  decisive  testimony  ought  to  make  us 
Trinitarians. 

We  have  suggested,  that  in  proportion  as  the  previous  presump- 
tion against  any  doctrine  is  strong,  the  evidence  by  which  this 
presumption  is  to  be  set  aside  may  be  justly  expected  to  be  cor- 
respondently  abundant  and  clear.  This  expectation  is  height- 
ened, in  proportion  as  the  sources,  from  which  the  evidence  is 
drawn,  are  fewer  and  narrower.  In  a  case  like  that  of  the  Tri- 
nity, where  the  doctrine  is  acknowledged  to  be  of  the  highest 
importance,  and  where  the  scri|>ture  testimony  is  the  only  me- 
dium of  proof,  we  may  certainly  look  for  the  utmost  plainness 
and  directness  in  every  proposition  relating  to  the  subject.  'JMie 
presumption  against  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  and  the  conse- 
<5|uent  necessity  of  an  increase  of  ])roof  to  remove  it,  become 


vu 

aironger,  when  it  is  considered,  that  this  doctrine,  if  proved  at* 
all,  mast  be  proved  from  t}ic  New  Testament  alone;  as  we  shall  » 
now  attempt  to  shew. 

I  am  aware,  that  there  is  a  small  number  of  passages  in  the 
Old  Testament,  in  which  it  is  thought  some  allusions  are  found 
to  a  plurality  in  the  divine  nature.  If  these  passages  alone,  how- 
ever, were  all  the  support  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  1  ima- 
gine none  would  think  them  of  great  weight.  No  one  will  say, 
that  a  reader  of  the  Old  Testament  merely,  would  find  there  any 
revelation  of  three  distinct  objects  of  supreme  religious  worship. 
He  would  find  nothing  from  which  he  could  infer,  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  the  supreme,  self-existent  God,  the  Father  of  Jesus 
Christ  also  the  supreme,  self-existent  God,  and  a  Holy  Spirit 
proceeding  from  them  both,  also  the  supreme,  self-existent  God. 
We  may  think,  that  after  this  doctrine  has  been  clearly  discover- 
ed in  the  New  Testament,  we  may  find  allusions  to  it  in  the  Old. 
But  no  one,  I  am  confident,  will  affirm,  that  a  reader  of  the  Old 
Testament  merely^  at  the  present  day,  would  find  there  any  men- 
tion of  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Giiost,  in  the  connexion  in  which 
they  are  now  used. 

It  is  generally  acknowledged,  that  this  was  in  fact  the  state  of 
mind  of  the  great  body  of  the  Jewish  nation,  at  the  time  of  the 
appearing  of  our  Lord.  It  has  indeed  been  very  laboriously  at- 
tempted to  be  shown,  that  vestiges  of  something  like  a  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity  are  to  be  found  in  the  faith  of  the  ancient  Jewish 
Church.  But  it  is  conceded  by  Basnage,  and  even  by  Allix  and 
Jamieson,  that  if  this  idea  had  ever  been  entertained,  it  was  lost 
among  the  mass  of  the  Jews  whom  our  Lord  addressed.  Whe- 
ther right  or  wrong,  they  were  beyond  all  question  wholly  unsus- 
picious of  any  modification  of  the  divine  unity.  Still,  however^ 
our  argument  admits  of  taking  a  less  broad  position ;  and  to  avoid 
all  possibility  of  cavil,  we  shall  simply  say,  that  at  the  time  of  the 
introduction  of  the  gospel,  it  was  Avholly  unknown  to  any  human 
being,  that  worship  is  to  be  addressed  to  God  the  Father,  God 
the  Son,  and  God  the  Holy  Ghost. 

Let  it  now  be  considered,  with  what  kind  and  what  degree  of 
evidence  we  are  to  expect  this  doctrine  would  be  unfolded  in  tke 


via 


New  Teslaineut.  A  doctrine  of  great  magnitude  was  to  be  dis- 
closed, against  which  there  would  justly  arise,  at  first  view,  in 
the  mind  of  every  believer  in  the  unity  of  God,  a  very  strong  pre- 
sumption. It  was  not  a  truth  of  natural  religion  which  was  sim- 
ply to  be  republislied  and  confirmed, ;  but  a  truth  was  to  be  re- 
vealed in  aj/parent  contradiction  to  natural  religion.  The  Jews, 
too,  we  must  remember,  had  been  accustomed  to  the  greatest  so- 
lemnity in  every  thingwhich  related  to  the  great  and  only  ob- 
ject of  worship.  It  was  from  the  *'  awful  top,"  and  amidst  the 
terrours  of  Sinai,  that  God  declared  to  them,  "  I  am  the  Lord 
thy  God.  Thou  shalt  have  no  other  Gods  before  me."  A  most 
important  modification  of  this  commandment  was  now  to  be  made. 
Two  entirefy  new  objects*  of  worship  were  to  be  revealed,  and 
the  first  commandment  was  now  to  be  so  far  changed,  as  to  run 
more  correctly  thus  :  We  are  the  Lord  thy  Gods.  Thou  shalt 
have  no  other  Gods  before  us.  Let  those,  who  deem  so  highly  of 
the  importance  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  who  make  it  the 
basis  of  the  gospel,  who  believe  there  is  no  Christianity  without 
it,  who  think  that  all  the  best  hopes  of  man  depend  on  its  truth, — 
let  these  persons  say,  with  what  clearness  and  what  solemnity  we 
might  expect  such  a  doctrine  to  be  revealed  ?  f 

*  No  Trinitarian  can  object  to  this  statement  of  their  doctrine  as  teaching  three 
distinct  and  supreme  objects  of  worship.  They  certainly  do  represent  our  Lord  to 
be  as  much  an  object  of  prayer  and  adoration,  as  God  his  Father.  Indeed,  if  the 
tiiree  constituents  of  the  Trinity  are  three  distinct  objects  of  thought,  they  are  also 
three  distinct  objects  of  worship.  If  they  are  not  distinct  objects  of  thought,  how  ab- 
surd is  it  to  pretend  to  speak  of  what  we  cannot  even  think  ? 

f  "  Rannot  h"lp  considering  it  as  a  monstrous  insult  to  the  Divine  author  of  reve- 
lation," bays  Mr.  Wardhw  himself,  as  truly  as  eloquently,  "  to  admit  the  supposi- 
tion for  a  moment,  that  on  such  subjects  as  these  it  should  be  necessary  to  wiide 
through  the  multifarious  opinions  of  antiquity,  in  order  to  understand  his  meaning. 
I  say  on  such  subjerts  as  these  ;  for  if  on  these  points  there  is  sucli  a  want  of  explicit- 
ness — points  that  regard  the  objects  of  worship,  the  state  and  prospects  of  man,  and 
foundation  of  his  hopes  for  eternity, — on  what  subject  shall  we  look  for  precision  ? 
If  it  were  indeed  the  case,  that  on  such  topicks  as  these  the  Bible  is  indeterminate,  re- 
quiring for  the  explanation  of  its  language  the  commentary  of  ancient  opinion,  the  in- 
fidel would  be  furnished  with  an  argument  against  its  divine  origin,  more  powerful 
than  any  he  has  ever  been  able  to  produce."  Preface,  iX,  [Nothing  can  be  better 
said  than  this.] 


Might  we  not  expect,  that  our  Lord  himself  would  at  least  once 
have  stated  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  in  express  language,  and 
have   insisted  on  the  importance  and  necessity  of  believing  it. 
Would  he  not,  at  least  once,  have  declared  formally  and  explicitly, 
that  the  (irst  commandment  was  no  longer  to  be  understood  in  its 
plain  and  literal  meaning;  the  meaning  in  which  all  his   hearers 
had  been  accustomed  to  understand  it.      The   word  God  occurs 
nearly  thirteen  hundred  times  in  the  New  Testament,  and  might 
we  not  suppose,  that,  in  some  one  of  these  passages,  we  should  be 
expressly  told,  that  the  term  is  m«(antto  include,   not  simply  one, 
but  three  persons  or  subsistences,  to  each  of  which  that  title  is 
apjdicable  ?  If,  in  every  instance  where  this  word  is  used  alone,  it 
im;)iies  a  plurality  in  the  diviae   nature,  should  we  be  unable  to 
find  one  solitary  example  of  the  aj>plication  of  plural  pronouns 
in  the  whole    N^ew  Testament .'      Would  neither  our  Lord,  nor 
any  one  of  his  Apostles,  have  left  a  single  sentence,  in  which  the 
whole  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  can  be  fully  and  accurately  ex- 
pressed ?     Should  we  expect  to  fiad  no  care  to  make  accurate 
and  evident  distinctions  between  the  doctrine  of  a  Trinity   and 
the  dangerous  Polytheistical  notion  of  the  heathens  ?      The  doc- 
trine of  the  unity  of  God  is  more  than  once  introduced  in  the 
New  Testament,  and  laid  down  most    clearly  and   solemnly. 
Our  Lord  himself  repeats  these  most   imi)rcssive   words  to   the 
Scribes.     The  first  of  all  the  commandments  is  :    "  Hear,  O  Is- 
rael, the  Lord  our  God  is  one  Lord. '     Now,  could  we  have   sup- 
posed, that,  as  our  Saviour  knew  this  would  be   construed   by  all 
his  hearers  as  teaching,  that  there  is  only  one  object  of  supreme 
worship,  he  would  have  omitted  such  an  occasion  as  this  of  decla- 
ring, that  in  truth  there  are  three  ?  Could  we  have  supposed,  that 
since  the  main  argument  for  the  Trinity,  from  the  Old  Testament, 
rests  on  the  plural  form  of  Aleim,  which  Mr.  Wardlaw  translates 
Gods,  the  Evangelist  should  have  chosen   to   destroy  this    argu- 
ment by  using  the  singular  noun  ©sof,    which  all  know  it  is  im 
possible  should  be  translated  otherwise  than  simply  God  ? 

If  it  should  be  said,  that  there  might  be  reasons  why  our  Lord 
did  not  publickly  teach  this  doctrine,  should  we  not  expect  some 

40 


account  of  his  private  conimunicatious  of  it  to  his  disciples  ? 
Wouhl  they  hav^e  preserved  no  record  of  their  tirst  knowledge  of 
a  truth  so  wonderful,  and  so  essential  a  part  of  the  Christian  sys- 
tem ?  If  we  can  suppose  that  our  Saviour  himself  forbore  to  teach 
publickiy  that,  which  was  in  fact  the  great  principle  on  which 
his  whole  Gospel  turned,  why  this  reserve  in  his  disciples  ?  The 
gospels  were  not  written  till  several  years  after  his  death,  and 
many  of  the  epistles  still  later,  and  should  we  have  expected,  that 
they  would  not  have  given  a  hint  of  the  time  or  the  circumstan- 
ces, when  this  stupendous  truth  was  unfolded  to  them  ?  Ob&erve 
in  the  Acts,  how  minutely  and  fully  the  manner  is  declared,  in 
which  the  doctrine  of  the  extension  of  Christianity  to  the  Gen- 
tiles was  unfolded.  And  could  we  have  thought,  that  the  first  re- 
velation of  the  so  much  more  difficult  and  so  much  more  incredi- 
ble doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  would  not  have  occupied  a  single 
line  of  the  sacred  history  ?  We  are  told  so  unimportant  a  thing 
as  when  the  disciples  were  first  called  Christians.  Would  the 
time,  when  the  worship  of  one  object  of  adoration  was  exchanged 
for  the  worship  of  three,  have  been  thought  unworthy  the  passing 
notice  of  the  recorders  of  our  faith  ?  If  for  any  reason  it  was 
improper  for  the  Apostles  themselves,  in  all  their  di'Terent  epis- 
tles, to  give  a  single  example  of  ascri[)tion  to  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Gliost,  would  it  have  been  too  much  to  ex[)ect,  that  we 
'  ahouldbe  informed,  w/im  such  worship  was  first  made  lawful  and 
necessary   for  other  Christians  ? 

But  if  all  these  expectations  were  groundless — if  it  were  ne- 
cessary, that  such  a  doctrine,  though  it  must  be  learned  from 
Scripture  alone,  should  yet  never  once  be  fully  and  plainly  de- 
clared in  the  Scriptures — if  we  could  suppose,  that  it  would  only 
be  dropped  incidentally,  and  be  left  to  us  to  collect  and  put 
together,  from  a  few  fragments  of  discourse  thinly  scattered 
through  the  sacred  volume — if  we  could  suppose,  that  not  only 
whole  chapters,  but  whole  books,  should  exist  without  the  smallest 
allusion  to  fl.at  which  is  the  key-stone  of  the  whole  gospel — if 
all  this  were  no  more  than  was  to  be  expected;  still  could  we 
believe  that  the  New  Testament  should   contain  any  thing  con- 


fradidory  to  this  doclrine  ?  Could  we  have  supposed,  that  there 
sh(  uld    be  two   hundred  and  fouty    passages   iu    the    New 
Testament,  from   which  our   Saviour's   siihordination  to  the  Fa- 
ther may  be  deduced  ;   and  not  less   than   four  hundred  and 
FORTY  passages  in  which  the  Father  is   so  mentioned,  as  to  lead 
to  tlie  conclusion  that  he  is  exclusively  tlie   supreme  God.     We 
may  easily  account,  on  the  Unitarian  hypothesis,  for  many  very 
strong  and  elevated  epithets  ascribed  to  our  Saviour,  a  Being  so 
dignified  in  himself,  so  perfect  in  his  character,  so  great  in  his 
office,  and  now  so  highly  exalted  by  his  God.     But  what  account 
can  be  given  of  passages,  which  contain  the  most   express  and 
form=«l  contradiction  of  the  equality  of  Jesus  with  God  ?  Or,  if  this 
for  anj  inconceivable  reason  was  necessary,  at  least  should  we 
not  expect,  that  the  manner  in  which  the  contradiction  was  to  be 
reconciled  would  be  explained  or  hinted  at  ?  If  we  were  reasoning 
on  any  other  subject,  we  should  say,  that  one  such  passage  as  this? 
*'  My  Father  is  greater  than  I,"  introduced  with  nothing  to  ex- 
plain or  limit  it,  would  set  aside  a  thousand  mere  inferences  of 
owrs   in    favour    of  a  doctrine,    which    contradicts    this  truth. 
They  who  can  believe,  that,  although  it  was  the  express  design 
of  St.  John  in  his  gospel  to  supply  the  deficiencies  of  the  other 
Evangelists  with    regard    to    the  Trinity,*  he    woiHd    yet  set 
down  without  a  word  of  caution  or  comment  such  passages  as 
these,  "  I  came  from  heaven,  not   to  do  mine  own  will,    but 
the  will  of  him  that  sent  me  /'   "  My  doctrine  is  net  mine,  but 
bis  that  sent  me;"   "  The  Father,  which  sent  me,  gave  me  a 
commandment,  what  I  should  say,  and  w^hat  1  should  speak  ;' 
*'  The  Father,  that  dwellcth  in  me,  he  doeth  the  works ;"  "  For 
THE  Father  is  greater  than  I  ;"    "  And    this  is  life  eter- 
nal, that  they  might    know    thee,   the  only  true  God,  and 
Jesus  Christ  whom  thou  hast  senf^ — they,    I  say,  who  can  be- 
lieve, that  these  and  other  similar  passages  would  be  set  down 

*  This  idea  is  maintaioed  by  Trinitarians,  notwithstanding  the  evan- 
gelist expressly  tells  us  :  "  These  things  are  written  that  ye  might 
believe,  that  Jesus  is  the  Cfirist,  the  son  of  the  living  God,  and  that  ]ye- 
Jieving  ye  might  have  life  through  his  name," 


by  a  Trinitarian,  in  the  act  of  proving  his  doctrine,  with  no 
word  connected  with  them  to  restrain  their  natural  import, 
ought  at  least  to  be  more  sparing  of  their  charges  on  others 
of  want  of  reverence  for  the  Scriptures. 

These  expectations  with  regard  to  the  kind  and  degree  of 
evidence,  which  we  might  have  expected  to  find  in  the  New 
Testament,  for  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  are  not  only  intrinsi- 
cally reasonable,  but  conform  to  the  analogy  of  the  scriptures 
themselves.  The  doctrine  of  immortal  life  is  in  some  respects 
under  similar  circumstances  with  that  of  the  Trinity.  Neither 
of  them  is  expressly  taught  in  the  Old  Testament  ;  though  it  is 
thought  that  there  are  allusions  to  both.  Bioses,  however,  as  he 
never  taught  the  Hebrews,  that  there  are  more  objects  of  worship 
than  one,  so  he  never  employed  a  future  life  as  the  sanction  of 
any  of  his  laws.  So  far  there  is  an  agreement  in  the  circum- 
stances of  the  two  doctrines.  In  all  other  respects,  that  of  the 
Trinity  is  by  far  the  stronger  case,  and  would  seem  to  require  a 
much  fuller  and  clearer  revelation.  The  doctrine  of  immortality 
is  one,  which,  if  not  demonstrable  from  the  light  of  nature  alone, 
certainly  has  many  most  powerful  arguments  in  its  favour. 
Bishop  Butler  has  finely  shown,  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  fact 
or  circumstances  of  death,  which  furnishes  any  presumption 
against  its  truth.  We  know  it  also  as  a  historical  fact,  that  it 
was  the  belief  of  the  great  body  of  the  Jewish  nation  at  the  time 
of  our  Saviour's  advent.  The  Pharisees  who  embraced  it  were 
the  ruling  party.  All  these  are  circumstances  which  would  seem 
to  diminish  the  necessity  of  a  very  full,  formal,  and  frequent  re- 
cognition of   the  doctrine   in    the   New    Testament. 

But  how  stands  the  fact  ?  This  doctrine,  which  is  really  a  fun- 
damental, is  treated  as  such  throughout  the  New  Testament.  It 
shines  every  wherein  heaven's  own  light.  It  fell  constantly  from 
the  lii)s  of  our  Lord.  It  is  asserted  and  reiterated  by  every  one  of 
his  Apostles.  It  is  interwoven  into  the  whole  texture  of  Chris- 
tianity. If  then  such  i)lenary  proof  is  afforded  to  a  doctrine, 
which  reason,  instinct,  the  tradition  of  the  earliest  antiquity,  and 
every  good  feeling  of  the  human  heart,  all  disjjose  us  to  embrace, 


xiii 

what  evidence  may  we  not  justly  expect  for  such  a  doctrine  as 
the  Trinity  ?  The  previous  presumption  is  all  against  this  opin- 
ion, as  much  as  it  is  in  favour  of  the  doctrine  of  immortality.  Up 
to  this  very  day,  its  advocates  have  been  unable  fully  and  fairly 
to  state  it  in  any  language,  in  which  terras  have  a  known  and 
definite  meaning,  without  involving  an  assertion  of  three  Gods,  or 
else  an  express  and  manifest  contradiction.  We  have  a  right 
to  expect,  therefore,  that  this  difficulty  will  be  removed  in  the 
Scripture,  and  that  all  we  are  to  believe  on  this  subject  will  there 
be  expressed  in  plain  and  intelligible  language.  It  is  from  this 
source  alone,  we  are  to  remember,  that  we  are  to  gather  all  our 
ideas  on  this  subject.  This  high  and  awful  mystery  lies  wholly 
within  the  province  of  revelation.  How  strong  and  clear,  then, 
will  be  the  light,  which  will  be  shed  on  it  in  the  sacred  volume, 
if  it  be  indeed  a  truth,  and  especially  a  fundamental  truth  of 
Christianity  !  How  much  stronger  and  clearer,  than  that  which 
is  thrown  on  the  doctrine  of  immortal  life  ! 

I  have  thus  attempted  to  state  some  preliminary  considera- 
tions, which  ought  to  be  kept  in  view  by  every  one  who  is  about 
to  examine  the  New  Testament  on  the  subject  of  the  Trinity. 
It  is  believed  to  be  utterly  impossible,  that  a  man  of  a  sound 
mind,  who  carries  with  him  to  the  Scriptures  just  views  of  the 
evidence  which  this  doctrine  demands,  or  may  be  expected  to 
possess,  can  receive  it  as  a  part  of  the  gospel,  especially  as  a 
truth  essential  to  salvation. 


XIV 


ON    THE    WEAKNESS    AND    AESl'RDTTY  OF    THE    PRETENDED     DISTINCTION 

OF    TWO    NATURES    IN    CHRIST. — SEE    EMLYN'S    WORKS VOL.    I.    P.    9? 

—105. 

Tkinitarians  have  but  one  shift  left  for  the  evading  the  plain 
arguments  which  Scripture  atfords  against  their  system,  and  that 
is  a  distinction  which  serves  them  in    all    cases  ;  for  they  say, 
Jesus  Christ,  when  he  speaks   of  his   inferiority  to  the  Fatlier, 
speaks  these  things  of  himself  as   man  only,  while  he  had  an- 
other nature  as  God,  which  he  reserved,  and  excepted  out  of 
the  case  :   So  that  when  he  says,  /  cannot  do  thus  of  myself,  or  I 
am  not  to  be  called  tlie  cft;Vf  good,  or  I  do  not  know  this,  &c.  accord- 
ing to  tliem,  the  meaning  is,  *'  I  have  not  these  perfections  in  my 
human  nature  ;  but  yet  I  know  and  can  do  all  unassisted,  aud 
am  the  chief  good  in  my  divine  naUire,  which  also  is  more  proper- 
ly myself."     The  vanity  of  which  subterfuge  I  intend  now  to  lay 
open,  by  shewing  how  absurdly  this  distinction  of  the   tno  7ia- 
i?ir(P,?  is  pretended,  to  take  off  the  force  of  such  expressions  from 
Christ's   own  mouth,  which  in  their  natural  and  undisguised  ap- 
pearance do  proclaim  his   inferiority^  to   God,  even  the  Father. 
And  I  shall  dwell  the  more  upon  this,  because  it  is  the  most  pop- 
ular and  common  evasion,  and  comes  in  at  every  turn,  when  all 
other  relief  fails. 

It  would  be  no  unreasonable  demand  to  ask,  what  intimation 
of  any  such  distinction  of  two  natures  thej'  can  [lointus  to,  in  any 
of  these  discourses  of  Christ  ?  Why  should  men  devise  or  ima- 
gine for  him  such  a  strange  and  seemingly  deceitful  way  of 
speaking,  from  no  ground  or  necessity,  other  than  that  of  up- 
holding their  own  precarious  opinion  1  But  I  have  several  re- 
marks to  make  upon  this  common  answer. 

1.  That  which  in  \\\e  first  place  I  have  to  object  against  it  is, 
That  our  blessed  Lord  .lesus  Christ,  if  himself  was  the  Supreme 
God  in  any  nature  of  his  own,  could  not  have  said  such  things, 
in  any  consistencj^  with  truth  and  sincerity,  which  he  always 
maintained  strictly :  he  could  not  say,  that  himself  could  not 
do,  or  did  not  know  ihe  thing,  which  all  this  while  himself  could 
^0  and   did  know  very  well,  if  he  was  the  supreme  God  :  for  this 


XV 

were  to  make  him  say  Avhat  is  most  false,  and  to  equivocate  in 
the  most  deceitful  manner  :  for  though  we  should  suppose,  that 
he  consisted  of  two  infinitely  distunt  natures,  and  so  had  two 
capacities  of  knowledge,  &c.  yet  since,  himself  includes  them 
both,  it  follows,  that  the  denying  a  thing  of  himself  in  absolute 
terms,  without  any  limitation  in  the  words  or  other  obvious 
circumstances,  does  plainly  imply  a  denial  of  its  belonging  to 
any  part  of  his  person  or  any  nature  in  it.  For,  though  we 
may  affirm  a  thing  of  a  person  which  belongs  only  to  a  part 
of  him — as  I  may  properly  say  a  man  is  wounded  or  hurt,  though  it 
be  only  in  one  member,  suppose  an  arm — yet  I  cannot  justly  deny 
a  thing  of  him  which  belongs  only  to  one  part,  because  it  belongs 
not  to  another  ;  as  I  cannot  say  a  man  is  not  wounded,  because 
though  one  arm  be  shot  or  wounded,  yet  the  other  is  whole. 

For  instance,  I  have  two  organs  of  sight,  two  eyes.  Now  sup- 
pose I  converse  with  a  man  with  one  eye  shut  and  the  other 
open;  if  being  asked  whether  I  saw  him,  I  should  dare  to  say  I 
saw  him  not,  without  any  limitation — meaning  to  myself,  that 
I  saw  him  not  with  the  eye  which  was  shut,  though  still  I  saw  him 
well  enough  with  the  eye  which  was  open — I  fear  I  should  bear 
the  reproach  of  a  liar  and  deceiver,  notwithstanding  such  a  mental 
reservation  as  some  would  attribute  to  the  Holy  Jesus.  For 
knowledge  is  the  eye  of  the  person  ;  Jesus  Christ  is  supposed  to 
have  two  of  these  knowing  capacities,  the  one  weak,  the 
otlicr  strong  and  piercing  that  discerns  all  things.  Now  as  such 
an  one,  the  disciples  repair  to  him,  and  ask  him,  when  the  end 
of  the  world  and  time  of  his  coming  shall  be  ?  He  answers  them, 
by  giving  them  some  general  account  of  the  matter,  but  says  that 
the  [)art\ci\hr  day  and  hour  he  knew  not,  nor  did  any  know  but 
the  Father — meaning  (say  my  opposers)  that  he  knew  it  not  with 
his  human  knowledge,  tho  he  knew  it  well  enough  with  his  divine 
at  the  very  time  that  he  said,  the  Son  knoivs  it  not,  absolutely 
and  indefinitely. 

And  yet  if  Jesus  Christ  had  a  divine  knowledge  and  nature, 
no  doubt  his  disciples  (who,  if  any  body,  must  be  supposed  to  be- 
lieve it)  directed  the  question  to  that,  rather  thaa  to  the  imper- 


XVI 

feet  human  capacily  ,  and  yet  in  answer  to  it  he  says,  he^nm- 
not  the  dcnj,  which  would  not  be  counted  sincerity  or  truth  in 
men ;  much  less  was  Jesus  Christ  in  danger  of  it ;  in  his  mouth  no 
guile  was  ;  let  us  not  impute  it  to  him. 

That  you  may  see  this  is  fair  reasoning,  hear  how  some  of  the 
other  side  own  it,  when  out  of  the  heat  of  this  controversy.  See 
Dr.  Stilling jiecCs  sermon  on  Mat.  x.  16.  speaking  of  the  equivo- 
cations of  Popish  Priests,  whose  common  answer,  when  exam- 
ined about  what  they  have  known  by  confession,  is,  that  they 
know  it  not ;  which  they  think  to  vindicate  from  the  charge  of  ly- 
ing by  saying,  that  in  confession,  the  Priest  knows  matters  as  God, 
not  as  man,  and  therefore  he  denies  to  knowtliem,  meaning  it  as  man. 
But  says  the  Doctor,  this  is  absurd  ;  because  to  say  he  does  not 
know,  is  as  much  as  to  say  he  dotJi  not  any  way  know.  Now  if 
'  this  be  a  good  answer  against  the  Papists,  as  no  doubt  it  is ;  thea 
sure  it  is  so  in  the  present  case.  Therefore  when  Christ  says  he 
knows  not  the  day  of  judgment,  it  is  as  much  as  to  say  he  does 
not  a7iy  way  know  it,  and  consequently,  it  is  a  vain  shift  to  say, 
it  was  as  man  only  :  we  must  beware  lest  we  bring  the  Hcly  Je- 
sus under  such  a  reproach  for  equivocation,  as  the  Romish  Priests 
lie  under  ;  and  make  the  Jestnts  themselves  think  they  have  a 
good  title  to  that  name,  by  imitating  herein  his  example,  which 
in  this  very  instance  they  alledge  with  so  great  advantage,  ac- 
cording to  this  interpretation. 

2.  Asa  farther  evidence,  that  Jesus  Christ  intended  no  such 
distinction  of  two  natures,  as  is  pretended;  it  is  to  be  ol^served, 
that  he  puts  not  the  ///.s/JHC/?*on,  or  opposition  between  the  Son  of 
man,  and  the  Eternal  word  (as  some  speak)  but  between  the  Son 
and  his  Father  :  Not  the  Son  knows,  but  only  the  Father ;  by 
which  it  is  plain,  he  had  no  thought  of  including  any  |)ersou  or 
nature  of  his  own  among  the  excepted :  for  whatever  was  not  the 
Father,  he  says  was  ignorant  of  that  day.  Now  it  is  certain  that 
in  no  na/t^rc  was  the  Son  the  Father;  and  consequently  where 
none  but  the  Father  knows,  none,  who  is  not  the  Father,  can  be 
intruded:  ::nd  since  our  Lord  was  making  an  exception  in  the 
case,  he  wouUl  not  have  forgotten  to  except  the  Eternal  Word 


XVU 

too,  if  there  had  been  such  a  iliviue  prin'c.  »le  in  himself,  equal  io 
the  Father  and  distinct  from  him  ;  for  it  is  a  known  rule.,  that  an 
exception  from  a  general  assertion,  confirms  it  as  to  other  ia" 
stances  not  excepted. 

Will  they  say,  that  by  the  Father  is  meant  all  three  persons 
here,  vis.  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost  ?  What !  can  the  Fa- 
ther, as  opposed  to  the  Son,  be  put  for  the  Father  and  the  Son  ? 
What  woful  work  will  this  make  with  Scripture,  to  suppose  that 
things  opposed  to  each  other  do  include  each  other,  under  the 
very  characters  by  which  they  are  opposed  ?  As  w  ell  may  they 
say  that  in  the  baptismal  form,  by  the  Father  is  meant,  Father,  Son, 
and  Spirit,  though  he  be  distinguished  from  the  other  two.  And  I 
should  despair  of  ever  understanding  the  Scriptures  above  all 
books  that  ever  were  written,  at  this  rate  of  interpretation.  No 
doubt  therefore,  but  the  Father,  as  opposed  to  the  Son,  excludes 
all  that  is  the  Son  ;  and  then  there  could  be  no  Son  of  God  that 
knew  of  that  day  which  only  the  Father  knew  of,  and  consequent- 
ly no  Son  that  is  God  equal  to  the  Father. 

3.  Moreover,  That  interpretation  must  needs  be  unjust,  which, 
if  admitted,  will  make  all,  even  the  most  plain  speech,  uncertain, 
and  utterly  insignificant ;  as  this  interpretation  of  Christ's  words 
would  do.     For  I  ask  the  patrons  of  this  opinion,  in  what  words 
Jesus  Christ  could  m  brief  hscve  denied  himself  to  be  God  most 
high,  if  he  had  a  mind  to  do  it,  more  plain  and   full  than  these, 
in  which  he  says,  he  knew  not  all  thimgs  as  the  Fatlicr  did,  nor 
coidd  do  all  things,  &c.  1  And  I  would  fain  have  them  shew  me 
what  words  of  that  nature  he  could  have  used,  which  the  same 
mayo{  interpretation,  as  they  here  use,  will  not  evade  v,x\(\  make 
insignificant.     For  had  he  said,  or  sworn  in  plain  words  thus,  vis. 
I  tell  you  I  am  not  the  Supreme  God,  and  none  but  my  father  has 
that  glory;  they  would  upon  the  same  reason  still  have  said,  this 
was  to  be  understood  of  him  as  man  only.     So  that  no  words  pro- 
fessing himself  wo<  to  be  God,  could  be  a  proof  of  it,  if  this  way  of 
interpretation   be  allowed.      I  may    therefore  safely  say    thus 
much,  that  the  blessed  Jesus  has  declared  himself  not  to  be  the 
supreme  God,  or  equal  to  the  Father,  as  plainly  as  words  could 
41 


XVIll 


speak,  or  in  brief  express  ;  and  that  this  declaration  made  by 
him  already  is  not  to  be  evaded  in  any  other  way,  (han  what  will 
mnke  it  im,)ossib]e  his  mind  shouhl  be  understood  by  any  words 
he  could  have  designedly  us  d  in  the  matter.  Let  any  one  try 
if  this  do  not  hold  true  :  and  sure  it  must  be  an  absurd  way  of  in- 
terpretation, which  leaves  a  man  no  opportunity  or  power  of 
speaking  his  meaning  jcZam?y,  so  as  to  be  understood. 

4.  Again,  this  way  of  interpretation,  which  the  advocates  of 
the  opinion  I  oppose  are  so  much  necessitated  to  for  upholding 
their  cause,  does  plainly  overthrow  it  again,  and  may  be  turni  d 
against  themselves  :  for  if  it  be  just  and  true  to  den}'  of  Christ 
absolutely  what  belongs  to  him  in  one  nature,  because  there  is  an- 
other nature  in  which  it  !>elongs  not  to  him  ;  then,  since  to  be  the 
chief  God  belongs  to  him  (according  to  our  adversaries)  only  in 
one  nature,  and  not  in  respect  of  the  other,  or  human  nature,  it 
follows,  that  it  may  jistly  be  s;.id,  Jesus  Christ  is  nofGo</,  nor 
to  be  worshipped  or  trusted  as  such  ;  nay,  that  he  was  not  before  the 
Virs^in  Mary,  and  the  like  ;  and  this  without  adding  any  lim- 
itation or  restriction,  any  more  than  our  Lord  does  iu  the  place 
mentioned. 

What  would  they  say  to  one  who  should  speak  or  preach  so, 
That  Jesus  is  not  God,  that  he  cannot  do  all  things,  nor  is  equal 
to  the  Father,  <£•<;.  ?  Would  they  no<^  conclude  he  was  a  denier  of 
the  Deity  of  Christ,  else  he  would  never  speak  so  unguardedly  ? 
U[)on  the  same  account,  when  .Tesus  Christ  himself  says,  that  he 
cannot  of  himself  do  all  thin;j:;s,  nor  know  all  thins^s,  and  m.'ke 
no  reserves  in  his  words,  we  may  conclude  that  he  also  denies  his 
being  supreme  God  ;  else,  if  it  i)e  a  just  way  of  speaking  in  him,  it 
cannot  be  unjust  in  us  to  imitate  him,  by  denying  him  ind' finite- 
ly to  be  what  he  in  any  one  nature  is  not,  i.  c.  that  he  is  not  God, 
without  adding  more. 

Nay,  after  this  way  of  s|)eaking^  which  they  attril)ute  to  Christ, 
a  man  may  be  taught  to  say  his  creed  backward,  and  yet  mi<ke  a 
true  profession  of  his  faith,  by  denying  of  Jesus  Christ  in  abso- 
lute exoressions  whatever  may  be  denied  of  one  of  his  natures. 
Thus  since  the  Apostles^  Creed  takes  notice  of  nothing  to  be  be- 


XIX 

lieved  concerning  Christ,  but  what  belongs  to  his  manhood,  (whick 
is  stninge,  if  there  were  any  articles  relating  to  his  supreme  Deity 
which  must  be  most  important)  one  may  venture  to  deny  them  all, 
with  this  secret  unexpressed  reserve,  vis.  meaning,  to  deny  them 
of  the  divine  nature  to  which  they  belong  not.  So  that  one 
may  s:iy,  I  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  was  not  conceived  of  the 
Hely  Ghost,  ovborn  of  the  virgin  Mari/  ;  1  believe  that  he  never 
was  crucified  under  Pontius  Pilate,  nor  was  dead  or  buried  ;  that 
he  7irvcr  rose  nor  ascended,  nor  will  return  visibly  again  :  for  his 
divine  nature  which  it  is  pretended  he  had  was  not  capable  of 
these  things.  And  since  they  say,  the  personality  is  divine, 
here  seems  more  warrant  to  be  bolder  in  denying  indefinitely  of 
the  person  what  belongs  not  to  the  divine  nature,  whose  the  per- 
sonaUty  is,  than  in  denying  of  the  person  what  only  belongs  not 
to  the  human  nature;  as  this  interpretation  makes  Christ  to  do. 
5.  Finally,  it  weighs  something  with  me,  in  opposition  to  this 
way  of  interpretation,  that  the  Evangelists  never  take  any  oc- 
casion (when  they  had  so  many)  to  sulijoin  any  caution  against 
taking  Christ's  words  in  their  obvious  sense,  when  he  savs.  he 
did  not  know  the  hour,  &c.  and  the  like.  If,  as  we  said,  our 
Lord  had  no  mind  fo  revciil  his  divinity,  (though  J  see  not  still  why 
lie  should  deny  it  thus)  yet  sure  his  Apostles,  who  wrote  so  many 
years  after,  whom  it  concerned  to  reveal  all  important  truths 
most  clearly,  would  not  fail  to  have  set  the  reader  right,  by  re- 
moving such  obvious  objections  as  these  are  against  the  supreme 
Deity  of  Christ;  and  saying,  he  spake  this  only  in  respect  of 
his  manhood,  that  he  knew  not  all  things,  &c.  But  here  is  not  one 
caution  given,  as  often  we  find  there  was  about  less  matters.  No 
dou!)t  it  was  because  they  would  have  the  thing  understood  as  it 
fairly  lies,  not  thinking  of  any  such  secret  reserve  in  Christ,  of  a 
divine  nature  in  his  person,  to  be  tacitly  excepted,  when  he  had 
denied  such  perfections  of  his  person  indefinitely. 


XX 


The  following  very  able  dissertation  may  be  read  with  advantage  under 
the  present  head.  It  is  extracted  from  the  Cambridge  BeposUoi-y 
and  Review.  Vol.  I.  pp.  74 — 89. 

AN  IMPORTANT  QUESTION  EXAMINED. 


"  For  if  the  trumpet  give  an  uncertain  sound,  who  shall  prepare  himself  for  the 
"  battle.  So  likewise  ye,  except  ye  utter  words  easy  to  be  understood,  how  shall  it 
"  be  known  what  is  spoken  ?  for  ye  shall  speak  into  the  air. — 

*'  If  I  know  not  the  mtaning  of  the  voice,  I  shall  be  unto  him  that  speaketh  a 
"  barbarian,  and  he  that  speaketh  shall  be  a  barbarian  unto  nie."  St.  Paul. 


QUESTION  : — Can  it  be  property  said  that  a  person  believes  the  truth 
affirmed  bij  a  proposition,  the  terms  of  which  he  does  not  understand  ? 

In  every  proposition  there  are  ceitain  words  on  which  the 
meaning  essentially  depends.  The  import  of  these  terms  must 
be  understood  or  we  cannot  understand  what  is  affirmed. 

Examjde.  The  Square  Root  of  one  hundred  is  ten.  I  may 
have  a  clear  idea  of  the  import  of  the  terms  one  hundred,  and  the 
term  ten  ;  but  still  I  shall  be  ignorant  of  the  truth  affirmed  unless 
I  know  the  meaning  of  the  words  Square  Root.  Can  I,  then, 
believe  in  the  truth  of  the  proposition  while  I  am  ignorant  of 
what  is  affirmed  ? 

Answer.  If  the  proposition  be  stated  by  a  scholar  on  whose 
veracity  I  rely,  I  may  believe  that  he  .speaks  the  truth,  although 
I  am  ignorant  of  the  truth  he  affirms.  But  it  is  one  thing  to  be- 
lieve that  what  '^  stated  is  true,  and  another  to  believe  in  the 
truth  itself.  I  may  have  such  confidence  in  the  knowledge  and 
veracity  of  another  person,  as  (o  believe  that  he  speaks  the  truth, 
while  I  know  not  the  meaning  of  one  word  he  uses.  He  may 
affirm  something  in  a  foreign  language,  with  which  I  have  no 
acquaintance,  and  I  may  verily  believe  that  his  declaration  is 
true,  while  I  am  perfectly  ignorant  of  the  truth  he  affirms.  But 
to  believe  in  the  truth  affirmed  we  must  have  vi  perception  of  that 
truth.  This,  however,  cannot  be  had  prior  to  a  knowledge  of  the 
meanins;  of  the  terms  adopted. 

As  words  are  often  amiiiguous,  we  must  not  only  know  sotnc 
meaning  to  the  several  terras  used,  but  we  must  know  the  pariicu- 


XXI 

lar  sense  of  the  words  in  the  given  proposition,  or  its  meaning 
will  not  be  understood. 

Example.     There  are  three  minutes  in  one  league. 

Here  we  have  two  principal  words,  both  of  which  are  ambigu- 
ous, viz.  minutes  and  league.  The  term  minutes  is  used  to  denote 
the  records  of  a  court ;  sketches  or  memorandums  of  events,  trans- 
actions or  discourses;  the  sixtieth  parts  of  an  hour,  and  the 
sixtieth  parts  of  a  degree.  The  term  league  is  used  for  a  conr 
tract  between  two  or  more  persons ;  it  also  denotes  a  measure  of 
three  miles,  or  the  twentieth  part  of  a  degree. 

To  understand  the  proposition  last  stated,  we  must  know  the 
particular  sense  of  its  terms.  For  if  we  mistake  the  meaning  of 
either  of  the  principal  words,  we  necessarily  mistake  the  sense  of 
the  proposition. 

Suppose  the  words  to  be  used  by  a  man  of  known  information 
and  veracity  in  a  company  of  unlearned  men;  from  confidence 
in  the  speaker  they  might  all  believe  that  his  affirmation  con- 
tained a  truth.  But  in  how  many  different  senses  might  his  lan- 
guage be  understood,  by  attaching  different  ideas  to  the  terms  he 
used. 

One  acquainted  with  geography  takes  the  true  idea,  that  a 
league  is  a  measure  of  three  miles. 

Another  by  minutes  understands  time,  and  thinks  that  a  league 
is  such  a  distance  as  requires  three  minutes  in  sailing  or  running. 

A  third,  by  league  understands  a  contract,  and  by  minutes  writ- 
ten partiadars  of  a  transaction.  He  supposes  that  the  speaker 
affirmed  that  in  a  certain  contract  three  distinct  particulars  were 
implied. 

A  fourth,  by  league  understands  contract,  and  by  minutes 
time  :  he  takes  tlie  idea  of  a  contract  which  required  three  mi- 
nutes for  writing,  or  which  was  to  be  binding  on  the  parties  only 
for  the  space  of  three  minutes. 

A  fifth,  by  league  understands  a  contract,  and  by  three  minutes 
so  many  miles.  Of  course  he  forms  the  idea  of  an  enormous  con- 
tract three  miles  in  length. 

Others  of  the  company  might  form  ideas  different  from  any 
of  these,  and  others  still  might  have  no  definite  idea  comrauni- 


XXll 

cated  to  their  minds.  Thus  a  company  of  a  hundred  persons, 
from  confidence  in  the  speaker,  might  believe  his  declaration  to 
be  true,  while  but  one  believes  in  the  truth  affirmed.  All  who 
mistake  the  meaning  of  the  terms,  mistake  the  import  of  the  pro- 
position ;  and  while  they  believe  it  to  be  true,  their  real  belief  is 
according  to  their  mistaken  views  of  the  terms. 

From  confidence  in  the  scriptures  as  the  oracles  of  God,  a  per- 
son may  believe  that  every  proposition  in  the  Bible  is  true,  and 
yet  he  may  be  ignorant  of  nine  tenths  of  the  truths  affirmed  in 
that  sacred  book. 

Several  persons  may  agree  in  a  belief  that  a  certain  Bible  pro- 
position is  true,  and  yet  each  one  may  have  a  difi'erent  opinion 
from  any  of  the  others  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  text. 

Example.  "  Thou  art  the  Christ  the  Son  of  the  Living 
God." 

Christians  of  every  denomination  believe  that  this  proposition 
is  true ;  and  true  in  the  sense  in  which  Peter  used  the  terms. 
Thejs  also,  agree  in  the  belief  that  Jesus  w^as  the  Christ  or  pro- 
mised Messiah.  Thus  far  they  unitedly  believe  not  only  that 
the  proposition  is  true,  but  in  the  truth  affirmed.  Thoy  more- 
over agree  that  there  is  truth  in  the  affirmation  that  Christ  is  the 
Son  of  the  living  God.  But,  still,  how  various  is  their  belief 
in  respect  to  the  sense  in  which  he  is  the  Son  of  God,  or  the 
ground  on  which  he  is  so  called. 

One  affirms  that  Christ  is  one  oi  three  persons  in  the  one  God, 
and  eternally  begotten. 

A  second,  that  he  is  one  of  three  persons  in  the  one  God,  and 
called  a  son  on  account  of  his  Mediatorial  office. 

A  third,  that  he  is  one  of  the  three  persons,  and  called  a  son 
on  the  ground  of  his  becoming  incarnate. 

A  fourth,  that  he  is  one  of  the  three  persons,  and  called  a  son 
because  his  human  nature  was  "  created  by  an  immediate  act." 

A  fifth,  that  he  is  one  of  the  three  persons,  and  that  the  man 
united  to  him  was  called  the  Son  of  God  as  saints  are  sons  of  God. 

A  sixth,  supposes  him  to  be  a  supcr-angclic  creature,  and  as 
«uch  called  the  Son  of  God. 


XXIU 

A  seventh,  supposes  him  to  be  a  mere  man,  extraordinarily 
endued,  and  thus  called  the  Son  of  God. 

An  eighth,  supposes  him  to  be  a  human  being  who  had  pre-ex- 
istence,  and  was  in  a  peculiar  manner  united  to  the  one  God,  the 
Father,  so  that  in  him  dwelt  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead;  and, 
therefore,  called  the  Son  of  God. 

A  ninth,  supposes  that  he  was  truly  a  man,  who  had  no  pre- 
existence,  but  was  united  to  the  Deity  as  intimately  as  our  souls 
are  united  to  our  bodies ;  and  that  he  is  called  the  Son  of  God 
on  the  ground  of  the  miraculous  conception. 

A  tenth,  supposes  him  to  be  truly  and  properly  the  Son  of  the 
LTriNG  GoD  ;  that  he  derived  his  existence  from  Deity  as  a  son 
from  a  father  before  any  creature  was  formed  ;  and  that  he  be- 
came man  by  a  miraculous  union  to  a  human  body. 

Although  all  Christians  may  believe  that  Peter's  proposition 
is  true,  in  affirming  that  Jesus  Christ  is,  in  some  sense  or  other, 
the  Son  of  God,  yet  no  one  can  believe  that  it  is  true  in  all  these 
various  senses.  The  last  accords  with  the  natural  import  of 
this  language  used  respecting  him,  "  own  Son,'''  only  begotten  San 
of  God,  &c.  And  if  this  be  the  true  sense,  those  who  believe 
him  to  be  the  Son  of  God  in  either  of  the  other  senses,  do  not  be- 
lieve the  truth  affirmed  by  Peter.  But  by  mistaking  the  meaning 
of  his  words,  "  the  Son  of  the  living  God,"  they  mistake  the  im- 
port of  his  confession,  and  believe  in  error; — as  really  so,  as  the 
man  did  who  believed  in  the  existence  of  a  contract  three  miles 
long  on  hearing  it  said  that  there  are  three  minutes  in  one  league. 

Hence  we  infer  that  a  man's  professing  to  believe  that  a  pro- 
position is  true,  is  no  certain  evidence  that  he  believes  the  truth 
thus  affirmed.  To  be  satisfied  that  a  man  believes  the  truth 
contained  in  any  article  of  faith  we  must  be  satisfied  that  he 
understands  the  terras.  If  it  be  evident  that  he  does  not  know 
the  meaning  of  the  words,  it  will,  also,  be  evident  that  he  does 
not  know  the  sctise  of  the  proposition. 

We  may,  also,  observe,  that  a  proposition  maybe  strictly  true, 
and  a  man  may  firmly  believe  it  to  be  true,  and  yet  by  mista- 
king the  terms,  his  sentiment  or  faith  may  be  perfectly  erroneous. 


XX'IV 

A  creed,  or  confession  of  faith,  may  be  perfectly  correct ;  a  man 
may  adopt  and  subscribe  it  believing  it  to  be  true ;  and  yet  his 
real  opinions  may  be  perfectly  inconsistent  with  the  opinions  ex- 
pressed in  the  articles  he  subscribed.  A  number  of  persons  may 
unite  in  adopting  the  same  articles  of  faith  while  they, are  really 
opposed  to  each  other  in  sentiment. 

In  the  light  of  the  preceding  observations,  let  us  now  candidly 
examine  another  proposition,  and  the  faith  of  its  advocates. 

Proposition.     "  There  are  three  distinct  persons  in  one  God." 

This  is  viewed,  by  many,  as  an  article  of  the  first  importance 
in  theology  ;  it  therefore  demands  a  careful  and  thorough  exami- 
nation. And  as  it  is  not  in  the  Bible  we  may  safely  criticise  on 
its  import,  as  we  would  on  any  other  proposition  invented  by 
man.  It  is  with  this,  as  Avith  all  others,  to  believe  what  is 
affirmed,  we  must  first  understand  the  terms.  Without  this,  we 
know  not  what  is  affirmed,  nor  what  is  believed  by  those  who 
say  that  the  jn'oposition  is  an  article  of  their  faith.  And  if  they 
do  not  understand  the  terras,  how  do  they  know  what  they  be- 
lieve ? 

Had  the  proposition  been  expressed  in  a  foreign  language  w^ith 
which  we  have  no  acquaintance,  should  we  not  have  needed  a 
distinct  explanation  of  the  words  ?  Would  it  have  been  consistent 
to  adopt  the  proposition  as  an  article  of  faith  prior  to  knowing 
the  meaning  of  its  terms  ?  It  is  indeed  expressed  in  our  own 
language,  and  in  terms  which  are  common  and  familiar,  yet  if 
we  do  not  know  the  sense  in  which  they  are  here  used,  we  do 
not  know  what  is  affirmed. 

The  terms  are  used  aceording  to  their  natural  import  and  com- 
mon acceptation,  or  they  are  not.  Iff  hey  are,  ihe  proposition 
contains  the  same  absurdity  as  saying  there  are  Ihree  di.stmct  per- 
sons  in  one  King.  For  the  term  God  in  it**  common  acceptation 
as  really  means  one  person  as  the  term  King.  And  by  three 
distinct  persons  we  usually  mean  three  distinct  bein»-s,  as  really 
as  when  we  say  three  distinct  men.  Therefore,  according  to  the 
common  acceptation  of  language  the  proposition  is  of  this  import, 
viz.  there  are  three  distinct  beings  in  one  beitig,  or  three  distinct 
persons  in  one  person,  or  three  distinct  Gods  in  one  God. 


XXV 

But  as  the  advocates  for  the  proposition  disavow  these   ideas., 
must  they  not  admit  that  they  use  the  terms  in  a  sense,  foreign 
from  their  common  signification?    And  when  terms,  which  are 
common  and  familiar,  are  used  in  a  sense  foreign  from  their  natu- 
ral import,  do  they  not  require  as  distinct  explanation  as  words  of  a 
foreign  language  ?  And  until  this  explanation  be  given,    is   not 
the  meaning  of  the  proposition  a.  mniter  of  mere  conjecture  ?  Yea, 
and  are  not  people  in  more  danger  of  being  misled  by  common 
and  familiar  terms  when  used  in  an  uncommon  or  unnatural  sense, 
than   by  words   with  which  they  have  had  no  acquaintance  ? 
Will  not  the  familiar  sense  of  the  words  always  first  arise  in  the 
mind  on  sight  of  the  proposition,  and  remain  as  the  sense  intend- 
ed, until  the  person  be  better  informed  by  some  explanation  ? 

If  the  terms  one  God  are  used  in  a  sense  analogous  to  one  Coun- 
cil or  one  Triumvirate,  then  they  must  be  understood,  in  orderto  ob- 
tain the  sense  of  the  proposition.  But  if  by  oiie  God  be  meant 
one  intelligent  Being,  so  the  terms  must  be  understood,  or  the 
meaning  will  not  be  apprehended. 

If  by  three  distinct  persons  be  meant  three  proper  persons  or 
beings,  we  must  so  understand  them.  But  if  by  three  persons  be 
meant  only  allegorical  persons,  as  three  modes,  or  three  attributes, 
or  three  offices  personified,  the  terms  must  be  so  explained  and 
understood,  or  the  meaning  of  the  proposition  will  not  be  per- 
ceived. 

As  an  article  of  faith,  it  has  been  explained  in  more  different 
ways  than  there  are  words  in  the  sentence.  By  some  modern 
Trinitarians,*  it  has  been  explained  to  mean  three  distinct  agents 

*  Those  who  believe  that  the  one  God  is  three  persons  appropriate  to  themselves 
the  name  Trinitarians.  Therefore  the  term  is  here  used  in  that  sense.  But  the 
writer  wishes  it  lo  be  understood,  that  he  does  not  deny  the  scripture  doctrine  cf  the 
Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit.  He,  however,  believes  the  doctrine,  that 
God  is  three  persons,  does  really  imply  a  denialolthe  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Ho- 
ly Spirit  in  the  scripture  sense  of  those  terms.  Before  the  Messiah  appeared  in  the 
flesh  God  said  thus,  "I  have  put  my  spirit  upon  him."  Isa.  xlii.  1.  This  was 
prophecy;  and  whon  the  Messiah  was  inducted  into  otEce.  God  proclaimed,  "  this  is 
"  my  beloved  son  in  whom  I  am  well  pleased  ;"  at  the  same  time  "  the  spirit  of  God 
"  descended  and  abode  upon  him."    John  says,  "  I  saw  and  bare  record  that  this  i» 

42 


XXVI 

in  one  Bnns-.  But  in  every  other  case  the  terms  ilirce  distincl 
agents  mean  three  distinct  beings.  These  expositors  have,  there- 
fore, yet  to  explain  what  thfij  mean  by  distinct  agents^  in  contra- 
distinction to  distinct  beings.  And  until  this  be  done,  we  cannot 
tell  what  they  mean  by  the  proposition,  or  whether  they  mean 
any  thing  which  can  be  understood. 

It  is  susj)ected,  that  the  most  numerous  class  of  divines  have 
meant  one  proper  person,  and  two  allesorical  persons,  or  the  wis- 
dom and  energy  oi  God  personified  for  the  Son  and  Holy  Spirit. 
Another  class  have  supposed,  that  by  the  three  persons  no  more 
is  intended  than  the  power,  wisdom,  and  love  of  Deity  personi- 
fied. 

A  fourth  class,  by  three  distinct  persons,  have  meant  tlirec  dis- 
tinct ojfices. 

A  lifth  class  by  three  persons  mean  the  same,  as  three  beings, 
some  how  so  united  as  to  be  one  God.  And  this,  it  is  suspected, 
is  the  most  common  idea  among  the  unlearned  who  have  affixed 
any  meaning  to  the  terms.  Blit  some  divines,  aa  well  as  many 
other  i)eopIe,  use  the  form  of  words  without  any  definite  meaning, 
and  do  not  profess  to  know  what  is  intended,  or  ought  to  be  in- 
tended, by  them. 

All  these  various  classes  profess  tobelieve  that  the  proposition 
contains  a  truth  of  the  first  importance.  But  are  we  to  su|'pose 
th;it  it  is  true  in  all  the  various  senses  in  which  it  has  been  ex- 
plained ?  This  no  person  of  discernment  will  pretend.  In  what 
sense,  then,  is  it  tnie?  If  it  be  true  in  any  07ie  sense,  and  in  btit 
one,  of  what  valut  is  the  faith  of  those  \slio  believe  it  to  be  true 
in  any  other  sense  ?  they  are  so  far  from  believing  the  truth  af- 
firmed, that  they  believe  m  errour,  as  really,  as  those  bj^  whom 
the  article  is  totally  rejected.  With  suilicient  self-comi)lacen- 
cy,  and  not  a  little  censoriousuess,  has  it  not  been  pretended  that 

*'  the  Son  of  God." — He  also  said,  "  God  givetlithe  Spirit  not  by  measure  unto  him." 
Thus,  "  Gon  finointcd  Jests  of  Nanaretli  witli  tlie  Hoiv  t>fiRiT  and  witli  power." 
Buch  is  tlic -scriptural  account  of  till' /■'ui/icr,  the  Son,  -and  the //o/j/  Spirit.  But  iu 
iali  this  account,  the  Father  is  the  one  God,  Jesus  is /lis  Son,  and  the  i/o/,v  Spirit  is 
that  >villi  which  God  anoinUd  and  endued  the  Son  in  wlioin  he  was  well  pleased. 


xxvu 

the  doctrine  of  three  distinct  persons  in  one  God  has  been  be- 
lieved by  all  the  true  Church  of  Christ  fmm  the  days  of  the  apos- 
tles to  the  present  time  ?  But  after  all,  it  may  be  asked,  how 
far  have  Trinitarians  themselves  been  united  in  their  belief  .'  And 
what  has  been  the  amount  of  their  faith  ?  Can  it  be  said  that  they 
have  been  agreed  as  to  the  meaning  of  this  article  of  their  faith  ? 
Certainly  not:  for  it  is  well  known  that  from  generation  to  gen- 
eration, divines  have,  in  this  respect,  been  much  divided  in 
opinion.  Has  not  their  agreement  consisted  merely  in  admitting 
^ form  of  words,  as  an  article  of  faith,  which  the  best  divines 
have  ex[)lained  in  many  different  senses  ?  If  merely  agreeing  la 
a  form  of  words  implies  union  of  sentiment,  we  may  affirm  that 
all  professed  Christians  have  been  united  in  opinion  respecting 
the  character  of  Christ.  For  all  have  admitted  the  proposition 
that  he  is  "  the  Christ  the  Son  of  the  living  God."  Yet  we  have 
seen  a  great  variety  of  opinions  respecting  this  article  of  faith  ; 
and  about  the  same  variety  among  Trinitarians  themselves,  re- 
specting the  import  of  their  favourite  article — "  There  are  three, 
distinct  persons  in  one  God." 

Let  any  one  fix  on  either  of  the  explanations  which  have  been 
given,  and  then  inquire,  whether  there  be  any  evidence  that  a 
majority,  even  of  Trinitariajns,  have  believed  the  proposition  in 
that  particular  sense.  Let  us  farther  inquire,  whether  there  be  not 
reason  to  suppose,  that  nine  tenths  of  those  who  have  admitted 
the  article,  have  done  this,  affixing  to  the  words  no  definite 
meaning,  or  one  which  implies  three  distinct  Beings  ?  And  wheth- 
er it  be  not  a  fact,  that  ninety-nine  out  of  a  hundred  have  admit- 
ted the  form  of  words  on  the  authority  of  others,  without  any 
careful  examination  respecting  their  import  ? 

I  do  not,  indeed,  admit  this  combination  of  words  as  a  correct 
expression  of  any  Bible  truth.  But  excepting  this  single  cir- 
cumstiuce  I  am,  perhaps,  as  much  of  a  Trinitarian  as  one  half  the 
persons  who  have  adopted  the  article.  I  believe  in  the  three  at- 
tributes  of  God,  power,  wisdom,  and  love.  And  this  is  all  that 
some  Trinitarian  divines  have  meant  by  the  three  persons  in  one 
God. 


'  XXVIII 

1  believe  that  God  acts  in  three  distinct  offices,  as  Creator, 
Redeemer,  and  Sanctifier.  This  is  what  others  have  meant  by 
three  persons. 

I,  also,  believe  in  God,  as  one  proper  person  or  intelligent 
Being;  and  in  his  wisdom  and  energy  ;  and  that  these  may  be 
sometimes  personified.  This,  it  is  supposed,  was  the  trinity  of 
Origen,  of  Calvin,  and  of  Baxter,  and  their  numerous,  genuine 
followers.  Why,  then,  am  I  not  as  really  a  Trinitarian,  as  the 
several  classes  whose  sentiments  have  now  been  represented  ? 
These  several  classes,  it  is  believed,  comprise  much  the  greater 
part  of  all  the  Trinitarian  divines  who  have  lived  since  the  year 
A.  D.  381,  when  the  doctrine  in  question  received  its  "finish- 
ing touch."  Why  then  may  I  not  have  scnyie  share  in  the  renown 
attached  to  Trinitarian  orthodoxy  ? 

It  may  here  be  proper  to  inquire,  what  vir!ue  or  praise-worthi- 
ness can  there  be,  in  believing  a  proposition  to  be  true,  Avhile  its 
meaning  is  M«/mo?i'7i  .^  If  I  have  evidence  that  the  affirmation 
was  made  by  God,  or  one  inspired  by  him,  my  believing  it  lo 
be  true,  while  its  meaning  is  unknown,  may  be  evidence  of  my 
confidence  in  the  wisdom  and  veracity  of  Jehovah.  But  I  may 
not  thus  call  any  man,  Father.  When  men  state  what  they  be- 
lieve, in  a  form  of  words,  not  found  in  the  scrijjtures,  we  have  a 
right  to  ask  what  they  mean.  And  if  they  have  any  definite 
meaning  they  can  make  it  known.  If  they  say  they  know  not 
the  meaning  of  their  own  terms,  we  may  safely  say,  they  know 
not  what  they  affirm.  If  they  cannot  tell  their  own  meaningy 
how  can  they  reasonably  expect  others  to  adopt  their  proposition 
as  an  article  of  faith  ?  But  if  the  writer  of  a  proposition  has  a 
definite  meaning  lohis  words,  aud  that  meaning  be  the  truth,  yet 
if  another  adopt  it  with  aditferent  meaning,  he  in  fact  embraces 
errour  instead  of  truth. 

It  is  the  ojtinion  of  some  ministers,  that  it  is  best  to  give  no 
explanation  of  the  doctrine  of  three  persons  in  one  God.     They 
say  it  is  a  mystery,  and  no  explanation  can  be   reasonably   ex- 
pected.    Hence  they  feel  under  no    obligations    to  tell  what 
/ifi/ wican  by  the  three  distinct  persons.     Why,  then,   would  it 


XXIX 


not  have  been  infinitely  better  to  have  left  the  subject  just  as 
it  stood  iu  the  fdcred  oracles  ?  Does  it  become  men  to  express,  as 
articles  of  faith,  their  own  opinions  of  ti.e  import  of  any  passages 
in  the  Bible,  in  language  which  they  themselves  cannot  explain  ? 
If  there  be  passages  of  scripture  which  are  to  us  myslerious, 
would  it  not  be  far  more  w  ise  and  safe  to  let  them  stand  as  tUey 
are,  and  wait  for  farther  light,  than  to  pretend  to  express  their 
import  in  propositions  unintelligible  to  ourselves  and  to  others  / 

Moreover,  if  the  passages  in  the  Bible,  which  are  supposed  to 
favour  the  doctrine  in  question,  be  really  mysterious  beyond  ex- 
planation, how  does  any  mortal  know  that  their  meaning  is  ex- 
pressed in  the  unintelligible  proposition  ?  To  know  that  this  ex- 
presses the  meaning  of  any  passages  of  scripture,  we  must  first 
know  the  meaning  of  those  passages,  and  then  the  meaning  of 
the  proposition,  so  as  to  be  able  to  compare  them  together.  Yet 
men  venture  to  express,  what  they  say  is  the  meaning  of  scrip- 
ture, in  language  which  they  cannot  explain.  Not  only  so,  they 
make  (heir  own  unintelligible  form  of  words  an  essential  article 
of  Christian  faith  ;  and  that  too,  while  they  know  not  the  mean- 
ing of  their  own  terms. 

To  me  it  appears,  that  there  is  no  passage  of  scripture,  Avhich 
has  respect  to  the  Father,  the  Son,  or  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  is 
half  so  ditScult  to  explain,  or  half  so  likely  to  be  misunderstood 
as  the  proposition  now  under  examination.  Yet  this  unintelli- 
gible combination  of  words  must  be  considered  as  so  sacred,  as  to 
be  made  a  criterion  of  Christian  fellowship.  But  notwithstand- 
ing all  the  importance  which  men  have  attached  to  this  article, 
and  all  the  confidence  with  which  it  has  been  maintained,  it  is  a. 
serious  fact,  that  those  who  reject  it,  are  no  more  opposed  in  sen- 
timent to  those  who  embrace  it,  than  those  who  admit  it  are  op- 
posed to  each  other.  And  is  it  not,  also,  a  fact,  that  the  greater 
part  of  those  who  have  adopted  the  article,  are  as  ignorant  of  its 
real  import  as  a  blind  man  is  of  the  colours  of  a  rainbow  ?  Con- 
fiding in  the  "  tradition  of  tlie  Elders,"  without  examination^ 
they  have  ado[)ted  the  proposition,  either  with  no  meaning,  or  as 
$reat  a  variety  of  discordant  meanings,  as  were  supposed  in   the 


XXX 

company  of  unlearned  men  who  heard  it  affirmed  that  there   are 
three  minutes  in  one  league. 

Is  it  not  much  to  be  lamented,  that  men  of  eminence  in  learn- 
ing and  piety,  with  sentiments  really  discordant,  should  contend 
for  a  human  proposition,  which  is  professedly  inexplicable,  as 
though  the  whole  fa!)rick  of  Christianity  were  depending  on  this 
as  its  foundation  ?  If  it  be  an  errour  for  people  to  believe  a  plu- 
rality of  self-cxistcnt  Beings,  who  can  reasonably  doubt  that  this 
proposition  is  of  bad  tendency,  if  left  unexplained  ?  For  who  is 
able  to  distinguish  between  three  persons  and  three  beings  ?  And 
might  we  not  just  as  safely  tell  common  people,  that  there  are 
three  beings  in  one  God,  as  three  persons  in  one  God?  They  know 
not  any  difference  between  a  person  and  au  intelligent  being. — 
And  where  is  the  divine  who  will  hazard  his  character  so  far  as 
to  attempt  to  explain  the  diCTerence  ?  There  may  be  sc7nc  who 
will  venture  io say  there  is  a  difference;  but  I  have  not  known 
of  any  one  who  has  attempted  to  state  in  what  the  diflerence 
consists.  If,  then,  it  be  a  fact,  that  the  terms,  three  distinct  per- 
sons, do  naturally  convey  the  idea  of  three  distinct  beings,  and 
no  one  explains  the  ditference,  it  is  evident  that  the  proposition 
has  a  direct  tendency  to  lead  people  into  the  belief,  that  there  are 
three  distinct  intelligent  beings  some  how  united  in  one  God. 
Does  it  not,  then,  seriously  behove  the  advocates  for  the  propo- 
sition, either  to  agree  in  some  intelligible  explanation,  or  to  give 
up  the  article  as  useless  and  of  evil  tendency  ? 

The  conduct  of  one  sect,  in  assuming  the  title  of  rational 
C7imf?'a7i5,  has  justly  been  accused  by  Trinitarian  writers.  But 
whether  some  of  them  have  not  been  equally  reprehensible  may 
be  worthy  of  consideration.  How  much  have  tJiey  laboured  to 
m.ike  the  world  believe,  that  true  piety  has  been  found  only 
among  'I'rniitarians  ?  And  which  is  the  most  indicative  of  iiride, 
for  a  sect  to  arrog:ite  to  themselves  a  peculiar  share  of  rationality, 
or  all  the  piety  in  the  Christian  world  ? 

For  the  pur[)ose  of  self-commendation,  or  to  cast  an  odium  on 
others,  or  to  deter  [)eople  from  a  thorough  examination  of  their 
seutinients,  or  for  some  olhtr   purpose  uot  very  obvious,  some 


XXXI 

have  taken  considerable  pains  to  impress  the  iilea  that  all,  or 
nearly  all,  who  depart  from  Trinitarianism,  proceed  from  bail  to 
worse,  until  they  make  shipwreck  of  the  faith  once  delivered  to 
the  saints.  And,  of  course,  when  any  one  openly  dissents 
from  their  creed,  they  would  have  the  publick  expect  that  he  will 
totally  ajiostatize  from  the  Christian  faith.  Such  representa- 
tions procure  applause  to  those  who  can  thus  commend  themselves  ; 
they  excite  a  jealous,  censorious,  and  clamorous  spirit  towards 
such  as  feel  bound  to  dissent  from  the  popular  mystery  ;  and  they, 
also,  deter  multitudes  from  any  impartial  examination  of  the 
doctrine  in  question,  or  any  thing  proposed  as  more  scriptural. 

It  is  my  wish  not  to  render  evil  for  evil,  or  reviling   for  revil- 
ing ;  tjut  may  I  not  ask  whether  a  resort  to  such  methods,  for  the 
support  of  the  Trinitarian  cause,  is  not  beneath  the  dignity  of  the 
clergy  of  that  denomination?  Does  it  not  evince  want   of  solid 
argument,  and  inattention  to  the  true  state  of  facts?  Before  such 
representations  are  any  more  urged,  it  is  wished  that  Trinitarian 
writers  would  attend  a  little  to  the  following  reasonable  inquiries. 
In  what  sense  did  the  bishops  of  Constantinople  understand  the 
terms.  Three  distinct  persons  in  one    God  ?    Dr.  Mosheim  in- 
forms us  that  it  was  a  council  in  that  place  which  "  gave  the  fin- 
ishing touch'^  to  this  doctrine  in  the  year  A.  D.  381.     As  it  had 
not  received  "its  finishing  touch"  till  that  time,  it  seems  to    be 
a  matter  of  high  importance  to  know  what  those   bishops    meant 
by  vhe  terms  they  used;  for  the  doctrine  was  then  in  its  primi- 
tive purity.     Had  these   bishops    any   definite  meaning  to   their 
words  ?  or  did  they  mean  every  thing  which  has  since  that   time 
been  held  by  Trinitarians  on  the  ground  of  this  article  ?    If  they 
had  but  one  meaning  to  their   proposition,  what  was  that  one 
meaning  ? 

Did  they  mean  that  God  is  three  distinct  agents  ?  Some  would, 
probably,  be  pleased  to  have  this  granted.  Let  this,  for  the  pre- 
sent, be  admitte«l  as  the  true  Trinitarian  doctrine.  What  then  has 
become  of  Calvin,  of  Baxter,  and  the  many  thousands  who  have 
supposed  that  the  Son  and  SpiWf  are  the  wisdom  and  energy 
of  Deity  personified  ?  And  what  has  been  the  fate  of  all  the  other 


xxxu 

classes  of  Trinitarians  who  have  supposed  the  three  persons  to  bf. 
three  modes,  or  three  altributcs,  or  three  offices  personified  ?  And 
those  also  who  have  so  far  dissented  as  to  use  the  terms  without 
any  meaning?  Are  all  these  classes  to  be  considered  us  apostates, 
having  drawn  hack  unto  perdition  ? 

Again,  was  the  original  doctrine  of  three  persons  in  one  God 
no  more  than  Origens  allegorical  Trinily,  imjiroved  by  the  use 
of  the  word  person  ?  There  are  pretty  strong  reasons  for  supposing 
this  to  be  the  fact.  If  so,  Calvin,  Baxter,  and  those  who  have 
agreed  with  them,  have  been  the  true  Trinitarians.  And  those 
who  have  given  a  different  meaning  to  the  proposition  have  been 
dissenters.  What,  then,  will  become  of  those  whp  hold  the  three 
distinct  agents  in  one  God  ?  Are  they  apostates  and  in  the  road 
to  perdition  ?  Will  not  the  doom,  which  some  have  passed  on  all 
who  dissent  from  the  strict  Trinitarian  doctrine,  involve  them- 
selves among  the  apostates  1 

Moreover,  it  is  well  known,  that  Doctor  Watts  departed  from 
the  doctrine  of  three  persons  in  one  God  in  the  latter  part  of  his 
life.  And  do  Trinitarians  wish  to  have  it  believed  that  Watts 
is  among  the  damned  ?  and  that  all  his  disciples  have  gone,  or 
are  going,  to  the  same  place  of  torment  ? 

Once  more.  It  is  desired,  that  those  who  have  been  disposed  to 
deal  so  largely  in  censure  would  consider,  what  a  number  of  apos- 
tates might  be  reckoned  up,  who  never  departed  from  the  Trinita- 
rian doctrine,  but  have,  by  their  practice,  made  shipwreck  not 
only  of  Christian  faith  but  Christian  ivories.  If  an  invidious 
mind  should  make  a  full  collection  of  such  names,  and  attribute 
their  apostasy  to  their  having  tmbraced  Trinitarian  sentiments, 
might  not  the  catalogue  bear  a  com[).irison  with  any  which  has 
been  mitde  out  by  Trinitarian  writers.  And  would  it  not  be 
treating  them,  as  they  have  been  difi[)Osed  lo  treat  those  who  have  - 
dissented  from  their  opinion  l  But  would  it  not,  at  the  same  time 
be  rendering  evil  for  evil,  and  reviling  for  reviling  ? 

On  such  ground,  it  would  be  very  easy  to  raise  a  hue  and  cry 
against  every  denomination  of  long  standing.  But  is  it  not  as 
ahominuhle  as  it  is  easy  ?  There  have  been,  and  are  now,  many 


XXXIU 

"very  many  amiable  characters  among  the  Trinitarians ;  nor  do 
I  feel  any  less  respect  for  them  on  account  of  the  many  bad 
characters  of  that  denomination.  But  neither  bad  nor  good 
characters  are  exclusively  of  any  one  sect  of  Christians. 

But  although  A'ome  Trinitarians  are  not  altogether  so  candid 
toward  such  as  reject  their  favourite  proposition,  they  are  remark- 
ably li!)eral  towards  each  other,  in  respect  to  the  latitude  allow- 
ed for  explanation.  With  any  one,  of  the  seven  or  eight  distinct 
opinions  as  to  the  imijort  of  the  term,  a  man  may  stand  on  very- 
fair  ground.  And  a  man  maj'  be  a  very  good  am\  Jinn  Trinitarian^ 
if  he  only  admit  the  favourite  article,  without  any  opinion  of  its 
real  import.  The  great  thing  requisite,  is,  to  admit  the  propo- 
sition as  true,  in  some  sense  or  other,  either  kuo\Yn  or  un- 
known. 

There  is  indeed  some  occasion  for  this  extensive  candour  in 
respect  to  the  various  explanations  ;  for  it  must  be  evident  to 
every  person  of  discernment,  that  the  proposition  cannot  be  un- 
derstood according  to  the  natural  import  of  the  terms.  Its  mean- 
ing, therefore,  must  be  a  matter  o(  conjecture.  And  every  explan- 
ation which  has  yet  been  given,  in  a  greater  or  less  degree,  con- 
tradicts the  most  obvious  import  of  one  or  other  of  the  terms  of 
the  proposition.  Most  of  the  explanations  perfectly  exclude 
the  idea  of  three  distinct  persons,  and  represent  God  as  strictly 
one  person  as  he  is  supposed  to  be  by  any  Unitarian. 

But  is  it  not  extraordinary  that  there  should  be  such  zeal  for  a 
form  of  words,  while  it  is  viewed  as  a  matter  of  such  indifference 
Avhat  meaning,  or  whether  anv  meaning,  be  attached  to  them  ? 
What  are  words  but  vehicles  for  the  conveyance  of  truth  ?  Shall 
then  the  form  of  words  be  held  so  sacred,  and  the  meaning  of 
them  i)e  of  no  importance  ? 

To  this  it  may  be  replied,  that  the  subject  is  mysterious,  and 

we  cannot  expect  words  to  be  clearly  explained  which  are  used 

to  express  a  mystery.     But  if  the  subject  be  mysterious,  then,  for 

conscience  sake,  let  it  stand  in  the  words  o{ inspiration^  and  not 

in  the  words  of  human  wisdom  or  human  folly.     If  the  texts   o€ 

scripture,  which  are  supposed  to  support  the  proposition,  be  mys- 

43 


XXXIV 

terious  beyond  explanation,  is  it  any  thing  sliort  of  extreme  pre- 
sumption to  pretend  to  explain  them,  or  to  form  a  proposition  in 
other  words  as  expressive  of  their  import?  And  especially  to  do 
this,  by  a  combination  of  terms  which  no  human  being  can  un- 
ravel or  explain  ? 

If  these  passages  of  scripture  be  really  of  mysterious  and  in- 
explicable import,  and  the  proposition  founded  on  them  be  so 
likewise,  how  can  any  man  know  the  meanins;  of  either.,  or 
whether  they  are  accordant,  or  discordant,  with  eacii  otiier  ?  Can 
these  things  be  known  otherwise  than  by  special  inspiration  / 
And  if  the  import  of  the  proj)Osition  be  unknown,  can  it  be  less 
than  absurd  to  attempt  to  support  it  by  the  unknown  meaning  of 
any  passages  of  scripture  ?  In  such  an  etfort  do  not  men  attempt 
to  support  they  know  not  what,  and  by  they  know  not  ivhai  ? 

Some  will  probably  think  that  giving  up  the  |»ropo6ition,  is 
giving  up  a  fundamental  article  of  the  Christian  faith.  But  if  its 
meanins;  be  unknown,  how  can  any  one  know  that  it  contains  any 
gospel  doctrine  ?  For  surely  this  form  of  words  is  not  found  in  the 
Bible.  And  if  the  meaning  be  not  known  it  cannot  be  made  to 
appear  that  giving  up  tlie  article  is  giving  up  any  divine  truth. 

It  may,  also,  be  said,  that  giving  up  this  proposition  will  be 
giving  up  a  doctrine  which  has,  for  many  ages,  been  a  source  of 
comfort  to  the  friends  of  Christ.  But  which  class  of  the  Trinita- 
rians have  been  the  partakers  of  this  supposed  comfort  ?  Or 
have  all  the  various  classes  been  alike  comforted  ?  If  the  com- 
fort has  been  the  6a?Me/o«W,  has  it  not  resulted  from  the  sound 
rather  than  the  ineamngo\'  words?  Or  shall  we  say,  that  the  va- 
rious and  contradictory  meanings  have  been  alike  conducive  to 
comfort?  But  what  shall  be  said  of  that  class  who  liave  admitted 
the  article  without  affixing  any  meaning  to  the  terms  ?  Have 
they,  also,  had  a  share  in  the  comfort  ?  If  so,  on  what  ground 
has  it  resulted  ? 

It  may,  perhaps,  be  supposed  by  some,  that  the  comfort  has  in 
a  great  measure  resulted  from  the  humility,  im|)lied  in  admitting, 
nsirue,  a  proposition  which  \b  so  pr-rftctly  mysterious  am\  unin- 
tellipble.     But  if  this  be  the  ground  of  the   comfort,   must    not 


XXXV 

some  deduction  be  made  from  the  supposed  afnount,  on  account  of 
the  pride  of  those  several  classes  who  have  attempted  to  explain 
the  mysieri)  or  io  XeWihe  meaning  of  the  term?  And  must  not 
the  greater  portion  of  the  comfort  be  set  to  the  account  of  those, 
who  have  been  so  very  humble  as  to  receive  the/or?«  of  words,  as 
sound,  ysMhoxxi  pretending  to  know  their  meaning,  or  even  making 
any  serious  enquiry  repecting  their  import? 

On  the  whole,  is  it  not  worthy  of  the  most  serious  inquiry, 
whether  the  supposed  comfort  has  not  resulted  chiefly  from  the 
popularity  of  the  mystery,  and  the  opinion,  that  true  piety  and 
the  true  church  have  been  found  only  among  Trinitarians  ? 

But,  in  calculating  the  real  betuft  of  Trinitarianisra  to  the 
Christian  \vorld,  it  may  be  proper  to  have  some  respect  to  the 
evils  of  which  it  has  been  productive.  It  has  unquestionably  been 
an  occasion  of  great  perplexity  and  cmharrassment  to  such  Trini- 
tarians as  have  been  much  in  the  habit  of  thinking  and  inquiry. 
\{may  have  been  the  occasion  of  much  disshmdation  with  many 
who  have  had  too  great  regard  to  their  own  popularit}^  It  has, 
in  time  past,  beeji  the  occasion  of  considerable  animosity  among 
ditferent  classes  of  its  advocates.  It  has  been  the  occasion  of 
much  bitterness  and  alienation  between  those  who  have  embraced 
the  article,  and  those  by  whom  it  has  been  rejected.  This  bit- 
terness and  censoriousness  has  been  the  occasion  of  great  grief 
to  pious  souls  of  every  denomination.  Add  to  these  evils,  the 
enormous  flood  of  sinful  revilings,  poured  forth  by  the  contend- 
ing parties,  and  the  xmcomfortable  and  unchristian  feelings  which 
they  have  indulged  one  towards  another. 

Now,  from  the  sum  total  of  the  supposed  good,  deduct  the  sum 
total  of  the  real  evils  and  mischiefs ;  then  let  candour  estimate 
the  amount  o{  real  benefit  to  the  Christian  world;  and  will  it  not 
pronounce  on  the  contested  proposition,  as  Jehovah  did  on  the  itse^ 
kss  Monarch  of  Babylon  ; — TEKEL, — thou  art  weighed  in  the 
balances,  and  art  found  wanting  ? 


FINI8. 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 
on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 

Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recalL 


frnc^62Jii/i 


IN 


SuP2  6l962 


T>  LD 


Mi  28  o^  '\l  fti* 


MAYl  2  1970  8  9 


^^70-4PWO^ 


aApr'63P^^ 


lA. 


EC  D  LD 


APR  ?    B63 


NOV  2  4  1065  Q^ 


IN  STACKS 


WQVroi965 


LD  21A-50m-3.'62 
(C7097sl0)476B 


•T\^ 


^^ 


(':    7? 


si:a 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


VC  46847^ 


'.XS^S' 


-   y-i 


i»; 


^f--    U: 


